Saviour or Tinpot Dictator?

Errata:


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

Mansergh Volume VIII TOPP Page 274

Harish Hyd mian,

Let me produce H V Hodson quote for your highness yet again:

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen. Page 166 Great Divide

Now... are you saying all Hindus were Congress members? Or all Muslims are Muslim League members? If you recall I produced evidence that one of the major culprits (from the Muslim side- Hindu culprits were even more in number) in Bengal violence was a fellow who had lost election to a Muslim League candidate in 1946. Besides the quote from H V Hodson you produced blames all communities and not Muslims.

For the record : So far you`ve produced nothing from H V Hodson or Wolpert that blames the Muslim League for orchestrating violence. Admit it. The only person who has quoted the facts here is me. You know it. Most balanced people will admit it- For obvious reasons I don`t expect an admission from you.

You would know the facts had you picked up the books you`ve pointed to but admitted that you`ve never actually read them or opened them or even seen them. You are operating on hearsay which is why I`ve been able to deconstruct your arguments with relative ease.
As for you being offline - convenient excuse. You need respite. I can see that sudden exposure to facts has had a terrible impact on you ...

``Chootiya-e-Azam``...

My post did not refer to Gandhi. Why are you bringing him up again?

``metaphors``

The only problem is as I pointed out that you bartered your dignity for a can of self-exploding whoopass.

Cheers
-YLH

BTW, I`m offline for all of next week, but have saved this topic on Favorites. So will see you after I come back.

#607 by Mantolives

I believe you meant whoop.. but nonetheless this gutter language indicates only what I`ve been saying all along.

Why are you squealing like I kicked you in your groin? I was only using ``metaphors`` (like Jinnah was doing when he was talking about the Muslim pistol). Kapiche?


#606 by Mantolives

I have produced a third quote that follows and the fourth one that precedes that which forms the context and which proves that there were two sides to the story. And even the two quotes you produce don`t blame the Muslim League let alone Jinnah.

Aha! Two sides? Which two sides my dear? You said it was the Congress that started the riots, while not being able to produce a single shred of evidence to that effect. Will you now admit that you are openly lying these days dear Yasser?

... ofcourse had you actually picked up the book you would know what I am talking about.

You still haven`t been able to explain if the excerpt that I produced from Gandhi`s Passion doesn`t exist in the hard copy version of the same book.

Hodson has not blamed Muslim League even once on the book- I`ve produced the quotes and page numbers. All I can deduce is that you simply have no argument.

Aww, unless you mean to argue that by ``Muslims`` he didn`t mean Muslim League. We all know the massive preparations that the ML was making first by arming ordinary Muslims and then recruiting hardened Muslim criminals to do the job. The icing on the cake however would be the fact that Suhrawardy declared a holiday to the Police force, when there were enough indications (which even an ordinary newspaper reporter could see) that there would be violence. What was Jinnah doing when the Bengal CM declared that holiday? Had he passed out from drinking excessive whisky? Or was he smacking his lips in anticipation of this ``show of strength`` that would bring the Congress to its knees?

Has truth come to mean something other than the opposite of falsehood in English language- reading you one surely would think so.

YOU are the original spinmeister Yasser. Note how you explained away Jinnah`s Jihad in the NWFP. Like a petulant schoolkid angry at momma for not buying him candy, Jinnah prepared to wage Jihad. I laughed so hard, I had to clutch my stomach. I forsee a good career for you as a stand-up comic. You should actually try it.

Thanks for being man enough to admit that you have never actually picked up the book you refer to which is why you are unable to back up with the facts.

Unlike YOU, I`m man enough. Thanks for recognizing this fact though.

If you picked up a book you would know the facts and you would probably open up that mind of yours.

Aww, what a lame excuse Yasser. Come back with something better the next time.

By comparison I have referenced every source and produced quotes from the authors you claim were taking your point of view.

The evidence is the same but the Paki in you overtakes the human being in you and you read what you want to. Anyone having an iota of common sense would see that incendiary speeches coupled with deliberate acts of omission were going to lead to violence. Heck, forget about experts, even a lay newspaper reporter could foresee what was coming, but not the Chootya-e-Azam.

And forget those authors- only yesterday you were treated to what I would say is a slap on the face by Majumdar- when you tried to use his words against me.

Aww, now Majumdar is your only crutch? What have I reduced you to Yasser? I feel sorry for you.

As for ``fiction``... you are the one who claimed to have some sort of monopoly on the truth - which you don`t but the illusion that you do forces you to act the way you do.

I admit you beat me hands down with words, but when it comes to facts, you are a dud.

``even an amateur like me can whup your sorry butt``

I believe you meant whoop.. but nonetheless this gutter language indicates only what I`ve been saying all along. Is it a case of self-exploding can of whoopass? I think so.

Dear Harish Hyd,

1-Its not being ``spoon fed``. I have produced a third quote that follows and the fourth one that precedes that which forms the context and which proves that there were two sides to the story. And even the two quotes you produce don`t blame the Muslim League let alone Jinnah. ... ofcourse had you actually picked up the book you would know what I am talking about.

2- Hodson has not blamed Muslim League even once on the book- I`ve produced the quotes and page numbers. All I can deduce is that you simply have no argument. ``which I disagree with`` - ah ha the buffet approach. You are not going to accept what he is saying but are going to infer something totally opposite from what he hasn`t said. And then you have the nerve to say that you are defending the ``truth``. Has truth come to mean something other than the opposite of falsehood in English language- reading you one surely would think so.

3- Thanks for being man enough to admit that you have never actually picked up the book you refer to which is why you are unable to back up with the facts. As for sleepless nights... are you projecting your own condition. If you picked up a book you would know the facts and you would probably open up that mind of yours.

4- ``Thats way less than I have done`` ... saying it doesn`t mean anything. The proof is there. You`ve produced no evidence or proof. Your sketchy inferences and biased website quotes notwithstanding, there is not even a single shred of evidence in what you say. By comparison I have referenced every source and produced quotes from the authors you claim were taking your point of view. And forget those authors- only yesterday you were treated to what I would say is a slap on the face by Majumdar- when you tried to use his words against me.


5- As for ``fiction``... you are the one who claimed to have some sort of monopoly on the truth - which you don`t but the illusion that you do forces you to act the way you do.

-YLH

#604 by Mantolives

I have both Gandhi`s Passion and Jinnah of Pakistan by the said author and challenge you to produce the paragraph where he comes right out and blames the Muslim League.

Yaar, why do you insist upon being spoon-fed? In the two excerpts I provided, Wolpert first says violence was unleashed by Muslim thugs and that Suhrawardy was widely blamed. Taken together, what does it mean? That it was indeed the ML that was culpable. Simple logic, apparently a bit too much for you to fathom.

The proof is in the pudding.

Exactly. Which is why Jinnah`s ``intentions`` don`t matter one bit. It was what Leaguers did in the days preceding DAD and what they did on the DAD that matter. As they say, ``Actions speak louder than words``.

On the contrary I have produced Hodson`s quote where he rules Muslim League culpability or intention on part of any central league leaders let alone Jinnah.

Now you`re openly lying. Hodson merely rules out ML`s intentions (which I disagree with, but let`s for a moment forget that) not culpability, unless you thought both mean the same.

Have you even ever picked up the book you are referring to ?

If I could give you such sleepless nights when I haven`t picked up a single book, you can only imagine your plight if I actually picked one.

The world has seen enough pretenders and witchdoctors who claim a monopoly on the truth... in reality they`ve always been exposed narcissist bigots suffering from a severe personality disorder. I fear that if you actually believe that you are defending the truth - then you are merely another one on a long list of such witchdoctors who have plagued. humanity.

Impressive words Yasser. I believe you can become a good writer..of fiction that is. When it comes to history, even an amateur like me can whup your sorry butt as has been amply evidenced by now.

So far you haven`t proved a single thing and that is precisely why you are acting the way you are.

The only thing you`ve done is quote Hodson in which he merely says it was not intentional. That`s way less than what I`ve done. So it`s clear who`s acting.

Dear Harish Hyd,


1- The excerpt you took from NYT had no apportioning of blame to Jinnah or the Muslim League. I have both Gandhi`s Passion and Jinnah of Pakistan by the said author and challenge you to produce the paragraph where he comes right out and blames the Muslim League... infact he gives both sides of the story and points out that the viceroy ruled out any Muslim League involvement.

2- The proof is in the pudding. You`ve been saying that it doesn`t matter whether you produced the page numbers or not is just another example of your skewed sense of reality.
You say whichever author... I would say that the number of authors I have quoted are not just one or two... I`ve named an extensive list. You on the other hand only quote websites or reviewed articles by biased writers.

3- I`ve not denied Hodson`s words. You`ve not produced a single quote from H V Hodson that blames the Muslim League. On the contrary I have produced Hodson`s quote where he rules Muslim League culpability or intention on part of any central league leaders let alone Jinnah. Page 166 - Great Divide.

4- Again Hodson or Wolpert don`t blame the Muslim League.

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen. Page 166 Great Divide

This is a quote from H V Hodson. Could you produce a quote contradicting this view? Seriously do you think if you repeat enough times that he said it - do you really think you would convince people otherwise? Have you even ever picked up the book you are referring to ?

5- The ``evidence`` you`ve given does not blame the Muslim League. Please don`t be clever by half. Wolpert says On Page 284 of Jinnah of Pakistan

`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.`

Then he says on Page 285- The Viceroy found no satisfactory evidence point to Muslim League`s involvement.

Apparently Wolpert also considers the Page 879 of Volume IX of TOPP a credible source.


6- The world has seen enough pretenders and witchdoctors who claim a monopoly on the truth... in reality they`ve always been exposed narcissist bigots suffering from a severe personality disorder. I fear that if you actually believe that you are defending the truth - then you are merely another one on a long list of such witchdoctors who have plagued. humanity...

7- So far you haven`t proved a single thing and that is precisely why you are acting the way you are. I wish you luck.

#599 by Mantolives

Not in Yasser`s court... in every reasonable forum and every academic argument this is a necessity.

I took Stanley Wolpert`s excerpts from the NYT website which had an excerpt from his book Gandhi`s Passion. Are you saying the NYT lied?

I`ve already exposed his arguments below and anyone can see whether or not he has any reasonable argument... but I don`t expect any impartiality from you with your skewed sense of reality.

Ah! Now that you brought that phrase, if there is anyone on Chowk with a ``skewed sense of reality``, it is you Yasser. You simply refuse to think for yourself, preferring instead to hang on to the coattails of whichever author is in line with your own opinions.

I was actually pre-empting your counterargument which I expected to be ``but there are no sikhs in Punjab`` for that is the kind of arguments you resort to often.

What kind of nonsense is this? Why would I say there are no Sikhs in Punjab? With such statements, please pardon me if I begin to doubt your sanity.

If Hodson is evidence then you should have accepted his own words shouldn`t you?

Well it works both ways. If you cite Hodson as evidence, then you should accept his words (that I produced) too, shouldn`t you?

Harish bhai you are kidding me right? No you haven`t. The words you quoted did not speak of Muslim League

It is clear as daylight now that the ML was to blame and all these three sources that blame it are diverse: two (Hodson and Wolpert are writers), one a newspaper report, one an inquiry report by the SGPC. Note that I`m discounting the British website that said as much.

and in any event those words proved that all communities were equally involved...

My dear, we`re only talking about who started it. It is a known fact that all communities were involved, but what did you think? That Hindus and Sikhs would lie down and play dead when Muslims mobs unleashed savage attacks on them?

As for Wolpert... he quotes Tuker that the first reports of violence came when a mob of Hindus stopped a Muslim procession from going to the main maidan...

Here`s an extract where he refers to the DAD:

``MAHATMA GANDHI fell into ``darkest despair`` on the eve of India`s independence in August 1947. Savage fighting spread from Punjab and the North-West Frontier to Eastern Bengal and Bihar. Brutal violence unleashed a year earlier by Muslim thugs in Calcutta had triggered Hindu counterattacks and the murder of more Muslims in Bihar.``

Here`s another:

``The man most widely blamed for the mass murder of Hindus and the torching of their property in the days and weeks following Direct Action Day was Bengal`s Muslim League Chief Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. Every British officer, including Governor Sir Frederick Burrows and Chief of the Eastern Command Lt. General Sir Francis Tuker, pointed to Suhrawardy as the villain of the terror that exploded after he gave Calcutta`s police a special holiday to ``celebrate`` Direct Action.``

Now where`s your proof dear?

Please note that you are quoting Inder Malhotra`s comments and not the book itself

Are you saying that Inder Malhotra made it up? This may be disingenuous alright, but it is a pathetic defense.

Jinnah was very upset at the British and was ready to drive them out having lost all faith in their ideas and government... his revolutionary fervor and desire to drive out the British was second to none ... which is why he supported Bhagat Singh so passionately when Gandhi was still busy signing pacts with Irwin (along with some token support for the cameras)

Wow! Jinnah as the Mahatma? Very cleverly, you`ll hide the facts that Gandhi signed that pact to get 90,000 Satyagrahis released. But I can argue too that Jinnah supported Bhagat Singh for the cameras, so what`s the point here?

That actually would go against your argument... wasn`t Jinnah ``wheeling and dealing`` with Wavell as you said...

Note the timelines dear Yasser. Jinnah was in bed with Wavell in 1946, and Wavell was subsequently replaced, Jinnah called for Jihad in 1947. This is a clear indicator that despite his secular outlook, Jinnah wasn`t averse to using religion if it suited his purpose.

Pakistan did not necessarily mean partition of India ... Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai prove in their books very conclusively that the Lahore Resolution kept options open for an India with autonomous units (which you may refer to as Pakistan- but which Jinnah did not till 1942 and that too he thanked Congress for as he was never really influenced by Rahmat Ali)

The question my dear is WHY?

And you haven`t even really quoted the book but an Indian journalist`s view of the book...

Do you know what quotes (``) are used for? If you did, you wouldn`t get such a stupid doubt.

Humayun Mirza is the son of a shortsighted Pakistani president Iskandar Mirza who was never involved in Pakistan movement whose biggest achievement is that he destroyed the Muslim League, founded the republican party- the first `king`s` party in Pakistan, hated democracy, abrogated the constitution, made a sitting chief of Army staff the Prime Minister... and was ultimately humiliated and exiled to London where he died cursed by the Pakistani people? And whose son had a point to prove about his father`s involvement in the Pakistan movement?

Words, words, and more words, but not a point in it. You may spin all you want, but it is clear what we already know.

But then... with you it is ``Heads Harish wins Tails YLH loses``... so whats the difference?

You`ve captured it very well. I defend truth, so I can never lose. You defend Jinnah, so you can never win.

BJKumar,

You continue to repeat yourself like a broken record without anything worthwhile. The two websites (Khalistan and Dalitstan) you refer to were quoted as counters to similar or even worse websites quoted by your people and not as a source of my argument. That you continue to try and deflect arguments by making scapegoats is merely reflective of the fact that as usual you have nothing to offer by way of argument.

Unless you can show me that Gandhi did not actually say the things I ascribe to him using his Collected Works... Unless you can prove that Claude Markovits` book ``Ungandhian Gandhi`` was written because of some malafide intention... unless you can prove with a logical argument that the view of partition and Jinnah taken by Ayesha Jalal, H M Seervai, Patrick French, Irfan Habib, Sumit Sarkar, S K Majumdar, Ainslee Embree, Lawrence Zirring, Roger D Long, Anil Seal, Ajeet Javed, S K Bandopadhaya, and many many more is wrong and what you imagine (and I repeat imagine because most of your arguments are based on assumptions and imagination like what you ``believed`` Seervai`s argument would be) is right.... you are wasting my time and yours.

My claims stand academically proved and supported (unlike yours and Mr Harish Hyd`s) by impeccable sources and scholarship (such as the names mentioned above).

-YLH

#594 Manto
[I did not at any point declare my sources as less than impeccable.]

You absolutely positively did not! And therein lies the weakness of your position. The writer must be the first line of defense in examining the credibility of the source before shoving them down the throat of the readers – when the source is doubtful in legitimacy, the reader expects you to inform him or her – not the other way around – and when someone informs you as such, you try to counterattack instead of being appreciative, that too after your attempts to ignore the discrepancy fail miserably!

You have time and again failed the critical “taste” test, Manto mian! You can do all kinds of word theatrics but your failure on the “intellectual” honesty scale (even by the by and large low chowk standards) is just too stark to evade.

In fact, I can even say the following.

Your inability to see the real purpose of why I bother to interact at all on your board – unlike the countless others who have given up on you – will handicap you in your dream like nothing else ever can – not the worst of your adversaries! My dear ignorant friend, I am not trying to “win” anything from you – you have little of value for me to win – but I do like your dreams enough that I do not like you making an absolute mince-meat of those dreams – not to mention a spectacle of yourself. (You are not the only such writer around here, by the way!)


[What matters is that when I sleep at night my conscience is clear... but I wonder if the facts I have put up plainly infront of you allow you a good night`s rest. I don`t think so.]

No, YOUR conscience’s clarity to yourself has little value to anybody other than yourself – you are a trivial person like this interactor is! But if you really cared about your dreams (and I am beginning to allow me a degree of doubt even on that score) you would keep your mind open and learn from EVERYTHING to best advance those dreams – instead of simply hemorrhaging the verbal deluge that you unleash here.

(By the way, I sleep so sound at night that N sometimes complains – what if we get burglars?!)

#595 Manto
[....academic scholarship....]

Let everybody know when you get your academic recognition - then perhaps people will actually start taking you seriously - perhaps even Mushy would (although that does carry some risks).

So far you have been rather evasive regarding describing your efforts at such scrutiny - and if any such scrutiny took place, what the results have been yet. In light of your promptness to jump and claim ``look ma, told ya...`` on virtually everything, I somehow feel that the results may have been less encouraging than what you expected.

Dear Harish Hyd,


``Oh so now anything without a hard copy reference/page number is not admissible in Yasser`s court?``

Not in Yasser`s court... in every reasonable forum and every academic argument this is a necessity. You would not need to come to my office... I can verify your argument by going to the source as I have a rather large and extensive library at my home of which I am excessively proud.

``BJ sahib ... credibility``

BJ sahib would wreck my credibility if he had any. This is the same gentleman who resorts to calling people whores for disagreeing with them... I`ve already exposed his arguments below and anyone can see whether or not he has any reasonable argument... but I don`t expect any impartiality from you with your skewed sense of reality.


``idiot ... sikhs ... calcutta``

Can you show me where I said they aren`t. I was actually pre-empting your counterargument which I expected to be ``but there are no sikhs in Punjab`` for that is the kind of arguments you resort to often. Sikhs were there and were a party to violence ... Hence Gurcharan Singh`s evidence is partisan at best.

``H V Hodson... stanley Wolpert``

Precisely and I showed you that neither of these gentlemen blamed the Muslim League or said that the League was planning violence... infact H V Hodson on page 166 rules out any malafide intention on part of the Muslim League leadership. If Hodson is evidence then you should have accepted his own words shouldn`t you? Again on page 166 ... he is very clear that Muslim League`s direct action day was meant to be a peaceful day of civil disobedience and nothing more.

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen Page 166 Great Divide


``I`ve quoted words from Hodson that go in the opposite direction``

Harish bhai you are kidding me right? No you haven`t. The words you quoted did not speak of Muslim League and in any event those words proved that all communities were equally involved... As for meaning didley squat... yes your repeating a lie really means didley squat. As for Wolpert... he quotes Tuker that the first reports of violence came when a mob of Hindus stopped a Muslim procession from going to the main maidan... No British government inquiry found any evidence of Muslim League involvement... the viceroy ruled out any ``satisfactory evidence`` of the League involvement... this is also quoted in Wolpert... apparently for him it was good enough.


``Iskandar Mirza`s son`s book``

Hearsay and that too not about Calcutta or DAD that we are talking about... and not from the book but instead from some Indian journalist. (Please note that you are quoting Inder Malhotra`s comments and not the book itself )... Since I read the book myself a few years ago at a library ... half of what Mr Malhotra has ascribed to the book is his own spin... but yes the book speaks of Jehad against the British in the Waziristan Agency... Jinnah was very upset at the British and was ready to drive them out having lost all faith in their ideas and government... his revolutionary fervor and desire to drive out the British was second to none ... which is why he supported Bhagat Singh so passionately when Gandhi was still busy signing pacts with Irwin (along with some token support for the cameras)

In any event ... at best it is a point of view. It is well known that Iskandar Mirza was not a Muslim Leaguer and was not in any way involved in the creation of Pakistan... That actually would go against your argument... wasn`t Jinnah ``wheeling and dealing`` with Wavell as you said...

Pakistan did not necessarily mean partition of India ... Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai prove in their books very conclusively that the Lahore Resolution kept options open for an India with autonomous units (which you may refer to as Pakistan- but which Jinnah did not till 1942 and that too he thanked Congress for as he was never really influenced by Rahmat Ali)....


So it is established that H M Seervai`s view is at variance to Humayun Mirza`s son`s views- right. And you haven`t even really quoted the book but an Indian journalist`s view of the book...

So who are we going to believe?

H M Seervai is a neutral party - he is an Indian Parsi, a jurist , a man of immense integrity and a person whose books are usually taken as the final word in law, constitution and history...

Humayun Mirza is the son of a shortsighted Pakistani president Iskandar Mirza who was never involved in Pakistan movement whose biggest achievement is that he destroyed the Muslim League, founded the republican party- the first `king`s` party in Pakistan, hated democracy, abrogated the constitution, made a sitting chief of Army staff the Prime Minister... and was ultimately humiliated and exiled to London where he died cursed by the Pakistani people? And whose son had a point to prove about his father`s involvement in the Pakistan movement?


But then... with you it is ``Heads Harish wins Tails YLH loses``... so whats the difference?

Harishbhai

(On the contrary, I`m very happy that Pakistan was created. )

So am I but not bcoz I believe that Pakistanis and Bdeshis are wicked people but bcoz Hindus and Muslims were unwilling to make the compromises necessary in 1947 and had the country been united we still would have been quarrelling like cats and dogs and nation buidling would have been at a standstill. And of course Waziristan and Wana would have been Indian territory.

(With 140 million Jihadis and their closet-suppporters like you)

That`s a patently unfair comment on Manto at least.

(The Quaid`s dream lies shattered today and Gandhi`s India is on its way to taking its right place on the world stage. So the only thing you can do is put lipstick on the pig, but unfortunately, it will still remain a pig.)

Its true that MAJ (pbuh)`s Pakistan lies shattered and I can only pray that the newer generation is more like Manto and repairs the damage. While India has done well in the recent past, its still dilli door ast (Delhi is far away). But inshaallah we will get there one day. And it has started recovering only after it started repudiated MKG and the Nehruvian scums that he imposed on us. India`s future may depend on further going away from Gandhian ideals.

Regards

#594 by Mantolives

He blames Congress for partition and says Jinnah was committed to a United India even in the end.

According to Humayun Mirza, Iskandar Mirza`s son, contrary to popular belief, Jinnah had wanted Pakistan all along. Here are some damning excerpts from his book ``From Plassey to Pakistan``. You can read the article by Inder Malhotra, eminent Indian journalist, who reviewed the book here.

``The British game plan was thus clear enough long before Mountbatten replaced Wavell. About Jinnah`s attitude, clinching evidence just available from an unexpected but unquestionable source underscores that he, far from being opposed to Partition, was hell-bent on getting Pakistan.

``The source is Humayun Mirza, the only surviving son of Iskander Mirza, Pakistan`s first president who, in 1958, had suspended his country`s Constitution only to be overthrown and exiled by General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan in 20 days flat. The son, a former vice-president of the World Bank, has written his father`s biography From Plassey to Pakistan (University Press of America Inc). It is a treasure-trove of information.

``Plassey is its starting point because the Mirzas are descendants of Mir Jafar who had betrayed Sirj-ud-Doula in the famed battle that had delivered Bengal to Robert Clive.

``Iskander Mirza was the first Indian graduate from Sandhurst but had to join the Indian Political Service because English officers in the Twenties did not want to serve under Indians. Having served diligently at the North West Frontier Province for long years, he became a joint secretary in the Defence Ministry in New Delhi where he remained, before migrating to Pakistan as the new country`s powerful defence secretary. He, of course, respected Jinnah immensely.

``In turn, Jinnah cultivated him (as he did other faithful bureaucrats such as Ghulam Mohammed, Mohammed Ali et al, who were to take over Pakistan after Jinnah`s death and Liaquat Ali Khan`s assassination). And thereby hangs a most pertinent and startling tale that needs to be told at some length.

``In February 1947``, records the son, admittedly on the basis of his father`s testimony to him, ``Jinnah sent for Iskander Mirza and told him that the prospects of getting Pakistan did not look good. He felt that the Muslim anger had to be properly demonstrated, otherwise the British would hand the country over to the Congress. He declared that if Pakistan could not be won by negotiation, it would have to be won by the will of the Muslims.``

``Jinnah added that he had decided that ``should negotiations fail by the middle of May, a dramatic statement must be made by the Muslims``. Humayun Mirza continues: ``He asked Iskander Mirza to be prepared to resign from the Government of India, and return to the tribal territory that he knew so well. There he was to start a jehad (holy war) against the British. Jinnah reiterated his faith in Iskander Mirza, urging him to take this extraordinary step to preserve the interests of the Muslims of India.``

``As Humayun Mirza puts it, his father was ``stunned`` by Jinnah`s request. For it would strain his ``respect for the British`` and his ``friendship with many of his Hindu colleagues`` and lead to ``bloodshed``. ``Yet,`` adds the author, ``he (Iskander Mirza) could not refuse Jinnah.`` But he told Jinnah that money would be needed to ``undertake this immense task, particularly if it involved (NWFP) tribesmen``. He estimated the requirement to be a crore of rupees, and also told Jinnah that before he (Mirza) could ``disappear into the tribal country, some cover story would have to be prepared``.

````Iskander Mirza,`` his son goes on to write, ``was given Rs 20,000 for immediate expenses and told that the Nawab of Bhopal would provide the rest. As for the cover, he would be told of it at the right time. Jinnah also gave Iskander Mirza his personal assurance that if anything happened to him, he would take care of the latter`s family``. (Emphasis added.)

``Iskander Mirza, according to his son`s book, ``started immediately to draw up a plan of action``. But as he prepared to present it to Jinnah, ``the latter informed him that Pakistan had been won and there was no longer any need for a jehad``. In the words of his son: ``One can easily imagine Iskander Mirza`s sense of relief.``

``Humayun Mirza comments that Jinnah was ``prepared to go to any length to achieve Pakistan... Once he made up his mind, he would pursue a single objective with tenacious zeal``. Nothing more need be added.``

#592 by Mantolives

Stanley Wolpert (for whom you`ve not given any hard copy reference/page number) does not at any point say that Muslim League planned it. There is no blame apportioned on Jinnah or the Muslim League leadership.

Oh so now anything without a hard copy reference/page number is not admissible in Yasser`s court? If I had provided the hard copy refernce, you`d want me to show it to you in person at your office in Lahore. But seriously, are you saying those were not the words of Stanley Wolpert and someone pretending to be him wrote that? Now you`re slipping dangerously beyond redemption.

The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.

Aww, now you repeat the same old words by Hodson. I gave you lines by the very same Hodson which go exactly in the opposite direction. So basically, it means diddly squat.

Have you even picked up the book by the guy ... because had you done so you would be trying to impeach his credibility as well.

And now you compare your credibility with his? Until BJ Sahib opened our eyes to it, we weren`t even aware that you quoted Dalitstan. No honest man would go anywhere near that website for obvious reasons. The fact that you did proves that despite your attempts to project yourself as a liberal Paki, you`re worse than even Urstruly and Masadi, who at least are straight-talking and bluntly honest about their views.

Now thats news for you... Sikhs in Calcutta but these are the facts...

Idiot, if there were no Sikhs in Calcutta, why would the SGPC commission Gurcharan Singh to prepare a report? Also, there is no town or village in the whole of India where you can`t find Sikhs, so stop being a fool.

Wavell`s conclusion page 879 Volume IX does not take a partisan line but concludes simply that there was simply no evidence that pointed fingers at the Muslim League let alone the Central Muslim League who you want to blame.

Just repeating the same point ad nauseam proves nothing dear Yasser. If Stanley Wolpert and Hodson are not evidence, I think you`ll question even Allah.

But I can see why you are so hard-pressed to find arguments... as to repeat the same old bankrupt arguments which don`t stand any test.

You`re the one hard-pressed to provide proof of the ML`s innocence. I`ve provided diverse sources that include even a British newspaper that foresaw the impending violence, but Jinnah was perhaps rubbing his hands in glee because that`d give him a chance to get his revenge on Gandhi for having upstaged him.

It was after all because of the intransigence of the Congress Party on partitioning provinces and separating completely Pakistan and Hindustan ... that led to two hostile countries.

I`m sure you`d have liked the Congress to lie down and play dead to Jinnah`s blackmail. They were smarter than that and Jinnah`s bluff was called. For all that BS about bargaining counter, Jinnah thought the Congress would play ball and didn`t calculate as to what would happen if the Congress refused to give in. The result of his diseased thinking is a diseased nation that is the cause of much of the world`s worries today. Thank God, we got rid of it when we could.