My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal

# 187 by Mantolives

+++++
facts quoted directly from primary source
+++++

Mantolives quoted ``directly from primary sources`` to deny well known facts with his dishonest interpretations of them. I had initially assumed that Mantolives was merely misinterpreting ``primary sources``. But it pretty soon became apparent that he was indulging in dishonest obfuscation.

Suhrawardy had stayed back in Kolkata after the partition. When finally he tried to go to Pakistan, he was dubbed a traitor and sent back to Kolkata. Suhrawardy`s membership to the First Constituent Assembly was subsequently terminated by the Liaqat Ali Khan government under the plea that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan. These are well known facts.

Mantolives knew all that but pretended not to. Mantolives dishonestly disputed facts that he knew to be true to the point of expressing contempt for the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh and for Prof. Sirajul Islam. An honest discourse was never in the minds of Mantolives.

Mantolives was initially hoping that I wouldn`t have access to electronic data to post it with ease in support my contention. He had also hoped that I wouldn`t bother to manually transcribe from hardcopies. And when I ignored his rude and dishonest rantings, he promptly declared ``victory``. And then when I gave citations in support of the two assertions, Mantolives loftily advised me not to be hung up by ``one op ed``, ``a Bangladeshi professor``, the ``prized Banglapedia`` and ``Bengali historians``. This is the height of dishonesty. Mantolives isn`t into any honest discourse, he is merely into ``disproving`` well known facts by bluster. He has done it before and he is doing it again.

Facts from the past won`t change merely because Mantolives makes it his mission to try to sweep them under the rug by dishonestly dissembling or thru bluster. In fact, it is a mistake to dignify Mantolives` dishonesty with any attempt to educating him.

Whatever citations and quotations I have provided are for people who are interested in an honest discourse. Mantolives is not. He is not interested in facts, only in sweeping them under the rug whenever he finds them disagreeable. And to that end, he will dishonestly dissemble to no end.

My dear Nakhok

I must respectfuly bring to your attention for the nth time: You are the one who is ignoring the facts quoted directly from primary sources.... like Suhrawardy`s own letters as archived in the US National archives which you described as Pakistani propaganda. Only you will describe your own misinterpretation of your selective citation as `facts`.

Why is Mantolives continuing with his dishonest prattle? Is this his way of having the ``last say``?! He can have it.

My citations were for the benefit of only those who are interested in facts.Mantolives is not interested in facts, but only in sweeping them under the carpet.

Nakhok

Unlike you I have quoted from primary sources such as Suhrawardy`s own letters.
I can see how utter and complete destruction of your mythology is painful. So go on reading revisionist history... the primary sources don`t lie. Facts will be facts whether you like it or not.

PS: I am yet to see how the `citations` you are quoting actually back up your claims. Sigalph tried to talk some sense into you... he is as Bengali as anyone... he doesn`t seem to think I am racist. The fact that you continue to attack me with this shameless argument is ample evidence of the fact that you don`t have anything worthwhile to say. You are the one who is showing disdain... you dismissed Suhrawardy`s letters archived in the US National Archives under his peace plan as Pakistani propaganda... needless to say you live with a very skewed sense of reality. I wish you luck in passing off your outright lies as facts... you are fooling no one here.

#175 By Mantolives

+++++
As for Suhrawardy`s seat... it was reinstated by the federal court.
+++++

A typical example of Mantolives` dishonesty. If Mantolives now asserts that Suhrawardy`s seat was reinstated by the federal court, he must have, at the least, been aware of the fact that the Liaqat Ali Khan government had terminated Suhrawardy`s membership in the first Constituent Assembly on the round that he was not a permanent society. Why, then, did Mantolives dispute that fact over and over agian?

Mantolives dishonestly disputed facts that he knew to be true to the point of expressing contempt for the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh and for Prof. Sirajul Islam. An honest discourse was never in the minds of Mantolives. He was initially hoping that I wouldn`t have access to electronic data to post it in support my contention. He had also hoped that I wouldn`t bother to manually transcribe from hardcopies. And when I ignored his rude and dishonest rantings, he promptly declared ``victory``. And then when I gave citations in support of the two assertions, Mantolives loftily advised me not to be hung up by ``one op ed``, ``a Bangladeshi professor``, the ``prized Banglapedia`` and ``Bengali historians``. This is the height of dishonesty. Mantolives isn`t into any honest discourse, he is merely into ``disproving`` well known facts by bluster. He has done it before and he is doing it again.

I would consider my efforts wasted if I had nothing more in mind than pointing out Mantolives` dishonesty. But it matters little to anyone if Mantolives chooses to be dishonest. My citations are not for Mantolives, they are for those who are interested in the facts rather in sweeping them under the carpet. I couldn`t care less if Mantolives declares at the top of his voice that he`ll not accept the facts.

For all his bluster, Mantolives will never be able to change the past. Regardless of whether Mantolives can accept it or not, Suhrawardy was indeed turned back from Pakistan when he tried to enter it after the partition. Likewise, regardless of whether Mantolives can accept it or not, Suhrawardy`s membership to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was indeed terminated by the Liaqat Ali Khan government on the ground that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan!

+++++
Frankly... my conscience is clear...
+++++

Yes, as clear as the sewage in his sewer!

Anyone who can take to disputing facts he knows to be true to the point of dishonestly expressing disdain for the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, ``Bengali professors`` and ``one op ed`` from DAWN does not have a conscience, period. It is an oxymoron to declare clarity of a non-existent conscience.

Nakhok,

You are the only one being dishonest as usual. I quoted from Suhrawardy-Gandhi correspondence and the British high commisioner`s note to prove that indeed Suhrawardy was moving freely across borders and was staying in Lahore and then in Karachi. The article you provided does not say what you claim... your point is rather sketchy. I have no reason to be dishonest... the only reason I am involved in this exchange is because you are concocting facts and then trying to prove them by multiple posts and misinterpreting article. Frankly... my conscience is clear... I am speaking the truth... clearly you don`t have the same luxury which is why you continue to try and cloud the whole issue with load of garbage.

The point is that once again your non-facts have been exposed.

PS: You still didn`t explain why Maulana Azad has a diametrically opposite point of view of the whole issue as well ? For quote consult one of my earlier posts.

Is he a PAKISTANI agent and a henchman of Jinnah?

More on Sher-e-Bangla`s fall from power in 1943:

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq had agreed on the floor of the Bengal Assembly that ``an enquiry is desirable`` on the excesses of the British Raj in Midnapore. Enraged, Governor Herbert immeditaely asked Fazlul Huq for `` an explanation tomorrow morning of your conduct.`` Huq wrote back that while he owed ``no explanation whatever`` he did ``owe a duty to administer a mild warning that indecorous language such has been used in your letter under reply should in future be avoided.``

Governor Herbert engineered a censure motion against Huq. The Governor, then, presented Fazul Huq with the following letter for signing:

---

Dear Sir John:
Understanding that there is a probability of the formation of a Ministry representative of most of the parties in the event of my resignation, I hereby tender my resignation ..... in the sincere hope that this will prove to be in the best interests of the people of Bengal.
Yours sincerely
A.K.Fazlul Huq

---

Governor Herbert then ruled Bengal by himself for a month to allow his favored politician, Nazimuddin, to gather sufficient support - an exercise in which Nazimuddin received the Governor`s assistance. The Governor, who had refused Huq permission to expand his team of ten ministers and one parliamentary secretary, allowed Nazimuddin 14 ministers, 13 parliamentary secreataries and 4 whips to make it easier for Nazimuddin to gather the required support.

Governor Herbert received full support from Viceroy Linlithgow who saw ``great advantage in being rid of Huq``.

sigalph235 wrote (# 173): ``It was well said about the Sher-e-Bangla that when the `sher` of Bangla roared, even the mighty British lion listened in uneasy respect.``

Well, the plain-speaking Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq certainly made the British lion uneasy. It wasn`t at all surprising that the British lion, in the form of Viceroy Linlithgow, would see ``great advantage in being rid of Huq``.

# 173 by sigalph235

+++++
It was well said about the Sher-e-Bangla that when the `sher` of Bangla roared, even the mighty British lion listened in uneasy respect.
+++++

Well, the ``British lion`` was the ruler. And it was not its wont to listen in respect to any of its subjects. The Sher-e-Bangla was no exception. However, unlike many a subservient native politician, the Sher-e-Bangla had the gumption to speak his mind even in the face of reprisals.

In 1943, at the time of his fall from power, Fazlul Huq was the Premier of Bengal as the head of a non-Muslim League coalition. The Muslim League was the main opposition in the Bengal Legislature. It was in February of 1943 that Fazlul Huq promised an enquiry into the excesses of the British Raj during the suppression of the Quit India Movement in Midnapore. He did so on the floor of the Legislature. Bengal Governor, Herbert, was livid with rage. He forced Fazlul Huq`s resignation. And finally in April of 1943 he had Khwaja Nazimuddin of Muslim League sworn in as the Premier of Bengal.

Governor Herbert, an agent of the ``British lion``, could oust Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq from power but he could not silence the Sher-e-Bangla. Speaking bitterly of Governor Hebert on the floor of the Bengal Assembly, Sher-e-Bangla said:

---

..... We felt [Governor Herbert`s] interference and obstruction so keenly that I addressed a letter. On August 2, 1942 I wrote: `I am convinced that the time has come when I must speak to you quite openly ..... You are acting as if your Ministers did not exist ..... In Cabinet meetings you monopolize all the discussions and practically force decision on your ministers, decisions which are in many cases the outcome of advice tendered to you by permanent officials.`

In the meantime, the disastrous consequences of the mistaken rice policy began to manifest themselves .....

After [Governor Herbert] had once managed to secure my so-called letter of resignation, the only end Sir John Herbert had in view was somehow to smuggle Sir Nazimuddin into power. He forgot his solemn promise to me that he would ..... try to form a national cabinet. Even the so-called letter of resignation drafted and kept ready by the Governor himself emphasized this point.

Of all the points of which a Governor can be guilty, the fault of partisanship is most reprehensible ..... A partisan Governor is no more fit for high office than a partisan judge.

It is not the vote of the opposition that (the new ministers) should dread, but the tormented cries of the famine-stricken people of Bengal. ..... The ministers will not be saved, unless Providence in His Mercy deems it fit to forgive their sins ..... Some day, sooner or later, they will be humbled to the dust.

---

It is indeed ironical that in independent Pakistan, Sher-e-Bangla would be so humiliated by the ruling establishment that he would be forced to complain that even the Britsh Governor, Herbert, had treated him with more dignity in 1943!

1954 saw the first elections (only for the provinicial government) in East Pakistan. Muslim League was comprehensively beaten by a coalition (Jukto Front) headed by Fazlul Huq. Fazlul Huq`s Krishak Praja SHRAMIK Party was an important constituent of the Jukto Front. The word SHRAMIK had been added to the old name of Fazlul Huq`s party to broaden its appeal to the labor in the industrial sector.

The Muslim League of Nazimuddin, Nuril Amin and Monem Khan bit the dust in that election. But Fazlul Huq`s days in power didn`t extend beyond a couple of months in spite of his landslide election victory. He was accused of being an Indian agent (much as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would be a decade later at the infamous Agartala Conspiracy Case). He was accused of treason and unceremoniously kicked out by the Muslim League establishment. Sher-e-Bangla complained bitterly, after that humiliation, that even the Britsh Governor, Herbert, had treated him with more dignity in 1943.

``Field Mrashal`` Ayub Khan had openly written of his disdain for Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq in his ghost-written autobiography, ``Friends Not Masters``. The ``Field Marshal`` would later have him ``EBDO``ed that not only barred him from running for office but even took away his voting rights. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq died a broken-hearted man in Ayub Khan`s Pakistan.

# 173 by sigalph235

+++++
what little criticism you have of him (Suez crisis)
+++++

I consider the Great Calcutta Killings as well Pakistan`s official stance on the Suez crisis to be serious blunders which, with a little more forethought, could have been avoided.

Among Suhrawardy`s miscalculations during the Constituional debate are:
(1) His acquiescence to ``Parity`` which, in violation of the one-man one-vote principle, rendered an East Pakistani`s vote to be worth less than a West Pakistan`s vote.
(2) His acquiescence to the ``One Unit`` demand which left Sind, Balochistan adn NWFP unhappy.

#175 by Mantolives

+++++
Liaqat Ali Khan`s hatred for Suhrawardy is not an unknown and the feeling was mutual ... yet it is not that I am disputing but your claim that he was not allowed into Pakistan, which is clearly wrong.
+++++

Clearly wrong?! Mantolives is being less than honest.

I have provided two references (DAWN of Pakistan & New Age of Bangladesh) in support of my claim that Suhrawardy was not allowed into Pakistan on the plea that he was a traitor.

+++++
In response you started attacking me with horrible accusations.... instead of showing some dignity.
+++++

This too is less than honest. It is Mantolives who could not accept the facts that:

(1) When Suhrawardy tried to come to Pakistan from Calcutta after the partition, he was dubbed a traitor and sent back to Calcutta.
(2) The Liaqat Ali Khan government terminated Suhrawardy`s membership in the first Constituent Assembly on the plea that he was not a permanent resident of Pakistan.

Mantolives took the above facts so badly that he accused me of concocting facts, demaded ``Have you no shame?``, made pejorative innuendoes about ``Bengali historians`` and advised me condescendingly not to get hung up on ``some op ed and some Bangladeshi professor``.

And when I initially refused to respond, he promptly declared ``victory`` on the ground that I hadn`t responded.

Anyway, it is a waste of time to respond to Mantolives rude and dishonest rantings. I have cited references in support of the above two facts. That should be enough for anyone interested in facts (dost-mittar, for example).

Facts from the past cannot be wished away with temper tantrums. Furthermore, it doesn`t really matter to anyone whether Mantolives chooses to accept them as facts or not. And if he chooses to gain satisfaction with his rude and dishonets outbursts, that too is his prerogative.

Nakhok,

My dear friend once again... you didn`t put up any facts for me to get upset about. I merely showed you that Suhrawardy was the middle man carrying messages of Jinnah and Gandhi to each other and therefore was in Pakistan several times unlike what your revisionist history claims. I backed that up by Suhrawardy`s own letters which are well documented and preserved in many places including the US National Archives. I have already quoted the reference several times.

In response you started attacking me with horrible accusations.... instead of showing some dignity. This is not the first time you`ve been caught red handed concocting `facts`.

-YLH

PS: None of the articles you are putting up support the outrageous claim you had made earlier. As for Suhrawardy`s seat... it was reinstated by the federal court. Liaqat Ali Khan`s hatred for Suhrawardy is not an unknown and the feeling was mutual ... yet it is not that I am disputing but your claim that he was not allowed into Pakistan, which is clearly wrong.

#165 by sigalph235

+++++
Pakistan never had a better Prime Minister.
+++++

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq, Khwaja Nazimuddin and HS Suhrawardy were all Prime Minister of United Bengal. The last two, but not Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq, were also Prime Minister of Pakistan. If I were to rank them in order of their determination to stand by the have-nots and to rid the land of feudalism, I would rank them as follows:

1. Fazlul Huq
2. HS Suhrawardy
3. Khwaja Nazimuddin

In fact, it is a joke to include the last named in the rankings because Khwaja Nazimuddin was feudalism personified.

Speaking of the three, it has been written, ``All three are buried, side by side, in the grounds of Dhaka High Court. For a while two of them were called Prime Minister of Pakistan. Fazlul Huq was not. But only he was spoken of as the royal Bengal tiger.``

re nakhok and Bengali leaders

My friend we both like Suhrawardy though it seems what little criticism you have of him (Suez crisis) is precisely one of the many reasons I like him more. Perhaps the only South Asian politician, an elected one at that, who openly defied the Arab-loving subservience of our ruler class.

Of course I did not mean to belittle Sher-e-Bangla. In his own way his greatness is no less than Suhrawardy sahib`s. Long before I was born, we had the honor of hosting him at our family residence both in Calcutta and, after partition, in Dhaka.

It was well said about the Sher-e-Bangla that when the `sher` of Bangla roared, even the mighty British lion listened in uneasy respect.