Mohammed Ali Jinnah Haazir Ho

December 25: Mr. Jinnah’s Legislative Career
EMail This Post Published by Adil Najam December 25th, 2006 in Law and Justice, People, History and >> Yasser Latif Hamdani. 774 Hits
Guest Post by Yasser Latif Hamdani

As we celebrate M.A. Jinnah’s birth anniversay today, December 25, it behoves us to think deep and hard on his true legacy (also see earlier Jinnah-related ATP Posts: The Other Side of Mr. Jinnah; Watch Jinnah-The Movie; 1947 Video-1; 1947 Video-2; Aazadi Mubarak; Independence Day Greetings for India; Remembering 9.11.1948).

Those who criticize the current government for passing the Women’s Protection Bill would do well to remind themselves of the long and extremely effective legislative career of Pakistan’s founding father, Mr. Mahomed Ali Jinnah, as a member of the central legislative assembly of India.

Indeed the greatest tragedy of the subcontinent is that both India and Pakistan have chosen to selectively remember this great man, especially by choosing to ignore his politics prior to the Pakistan Movement. However if both India and Pakistan were to revisit Jinnah’s pre-1937 Indian nationalist career, we would find much to celebrate together, even if we continue to differ on his later role as the champion of Muslim separatism.

Jinnah’s legislative career spanned over close to four decades, out of which 37 years were spent serving the cause of India’s progress. Most ironic was his very first election in 1910, where Congressman Jinnah, who was to one day lead Muslim League to hilt against the Congress, defeated the Muslim Leaguer Rafiuddin Ahmad from Bombay to successfully enter into the legislative council. Who could imagine then that this young Congressman barrister would one day end up becoming Muslim League’s most famous leader.

Barely a month into the assembly, he took on Lord Minto by denouncing the “cruel and harsh treatment that is meted out to the Indians in Natal” in support of Mohandas Gandhi, who too was to become his principal foe in the future. When Lord Minto reprimanded him for using “harsh language”, he replied, “Well my Lord, I should feel inclined to use much harsher language.”

In 1912, Jinnah alienated many of his Muslim supporters by giving his wholehearted support to the Special Marriage Amendment Bill, which sought to provide mixed religion marriages legal protection. He argued that the bill would provide equality but he was opposed by many members on the grounds that the bill contravened the Koran. Undaunted Jinnah asked the law member who had opposed the bill if he “would deny that there is a certain class of educated and enlightened people who rightly think that a gravest injustice is done to them as long as liberty of conscience is held from them”.

Rubbishing the idea that Muslim sensibilities would be hurt, he asked: “Is this the first time in the history of legislation in this country that this Council has been called upon to override Musalman Law or modify it to suit the time? The Council has over ridden and modified the Musalman law in many respects.” It was the same year that he stood up to argue that universal elementary education ought to be “compulsory”. He declared unfettered by any opposition religious or otherwise:

“In no country has elementary education become universal without compulsion. Find the money; if necessary tax the people. But I shall be told that people are already taxed. I shall be told that we shall face great unpopularity… My answer is that we should do all this to improve the masses of this country to whom you owe a much greater duty than anyone else. My answer is that you should remove the reproach that is leveled against the British rule, that is, the neglect of elementary education. My answer is that it is the duty of every civilised government to educate masses, and if you have to face unpopularity, if you have to face certain amount of danger, face it boldly in the name of duty.”

Later defining self government, he spoke of a government for the people and by the people unfettered and unconditionally. Here too Jinnah was at his best, a secular liberal politician who fought for what he believed in. While he opposed forces of religious reaction and espoused the cause of freedom, he did not turn his back to the legitimate demands of his community and this manifested itself in form of the Wakf Bill, which was his great legislative triumph for the Muslims. But if the Muslims thought Jinnah had changed his ways, they were sorely mistaken when he supported the Child Marriages Restraint Bill which outlawed marriages of girls below the age of 16. When questioned, Jinnah declared that religion had nothing to do with it, but that this was a question of common sense.

At other times, he pushed forward an agenda that sought to drive the British into a corner. In February 1924, he introduced a legislation that called for the Government of India to buy its stores through “Rupee tenders” instead of Pound sterling which had proved costly for India and had blatantly favored the British. In introducing this measure, he recounted 75 different British imperial purchases that had inhibited India’s economic development. His resolution passed and has been held by many historians as the single most important event in India’s pre-partition history that had stimulated indigenous Economic growth and development. Opposing a British move to introduce passports as a necessary pre-condition to enter India, Jinnah declared that “all regulations that impose passports are the biggest nuisance and the sooner they are done away with the better.”

Speaking against the deportation of Bombay Chronicle Editor, B. G. Horniman he declared:

“I do maintain, and I have drunk deep at the fountain of constitutional law, that the liberty of a man is dearest thing in the law of any constitution and it should not be taken away in this fashion.”

On Indian soldiers fighting British wars, Jinnah and Gandhi clashed publicly. Gandhi wanted to use Home Rule League to recruit soldiers for the British Empire, something which Jinnah found abhorrent and opposed. Jinnah believed that as long as Indians were not allowed to become officers or India remained in subjection, they could not be asked to fight for the empire. Jinnah said:

“We cannot ask young men to fight for principles, the application of which is denied to their own country. A subject race cannot fight for others with the heart and energy that a free race can fight with for the freedom of itself and others. If India has to make great sacrifices in the defence of the Empire, it must be as a partner in the Empire and not as its dependency. Let her feel that she is fighting for her own freedom as well as the freedom of a commonwealth of free nations under the British crown and then she will strain to stand by England to the last.”

Jinnah’s legislative career prior to his taking up the Muslim separatist case was marked by secular Indian nationalism and his desire to see India as a great and free nation of the world, inspired by constitutionalism and democracy. Jinnah stood for universal education, women’s rights, equality of Indians irrespective of religion, caste, creed or gender and against obscurantism of all forms. It is this part of his career that can not only help to bridge the gap of distrust between Pakistan and India, but can also inspire liberals in the nation that he founded to work for a modern, democratic and pluralistic Pakistan in line with Jinnah’s ideas of constitutionalism and democracy.

Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer in Lahore and a researcher of the history of the Pakistan Movement

Grundnorm of Jinnah`s political philosophy

In 1936 he drafted the following motion which the Muslim League carried:

1. Responsible democratic government on the basis of Universal Adult franchise instead of the system under 1935 Act.

2. Complete freedom of speech and expression and an end to all repressive laws.

3. 8 Hours working day with statutory minimum wage.

4. Universal FREE Primary education leading to 100% literacy

(Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan page 140)

``No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners.`` ( Barrister Jinnah 1944)

Jinnah WINS poll !

Jinnah the Greatest South Asian Leader ever: BBC POLL

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4100961.stm?display

Since there hardly has been any reaction worth responding to for quite a while/days, I have lost interest in the topic.

It is difficult to respond for long to posts in which a word has been picked from here, a sentence from there and then repetition of that on very regular basis. I have had much better and mentally stimulating discussion with another Indian on part of this topic. It was so interesting that we talked for over 3 hours offline and he had taken the position of the writer of the article when it came to secularism. And no, he does not participate here. I had taken some responses of the writer of the article and had pasted there without editing. It is not that it was just interesting but the main thing is, when an opponent puts across his/her pov sensibly it is much more easy to understand and appreciate other`s point of view even when it happens to go against one`s own pov. One loves talking/discussing/debating/arguing with an opponent who is not being dogmatic.

I recall, few years ago, on CNN board, there used be a participant called Tameez Ansari (I know for fact that he did come to Chowk but don`t know if he is still around). Even though he was not a Pakistani as such but had heavy leanings towards Pakistan. Reason I am mentioning him is because once he assumed the role of Atal Behari Vajpayee and an Indian interactor, whose nick was Vipul or Advani, took the role of Mushrraf and they both discussed the problem of J&K for a while. It was kind of heart to heart talk. Both were superb in their roles. One prefers discussing issues like these with people who have better understanding and depth in understanding these sort of issues, better. And one of the reasons is, people having better handle, avoid going into I said/you said/she said/he said....

Mantolives, I would be lying if I say, it was a pleasure talking to you, as such, on this particular topic (note, I am saying, on this particular topic). However, I do extend my sincere thanks to you. Because of you, I LEARNT more on many aspects of Mr Jinnah, Direct Day Action Call. Prior to that, I myself used to tell on various boards to Indians, whenver they used to start cursing Mr Jinnah, be thankful to him.

Farzana Versey

(You in the following is not personally yourself)

Just that you know that when I used to say I have more questions, I meant it, I am putting some of the questions from memory.

In the begining of the article you said, India lost out to Jinnah. I asked how? What is meant by that.

Second, somewhere in the article you have said something to the effect, India has become pawn in the hands of hindutava forces. How is that so? Can you really substantiate this?

You have also said had Mr Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi, there would not have been problem of POK (J&K). Would like to know what is the basis of arriving at this conconclusion or hope?

On the last question, may I humbly suggest, you read more on the subject. You will find that POK (J&K) problem is because of Mr Jinnah himself. It was his arrogance and egomania that is what really contributed to the problem.

Don`t take my word for that. Read the coloumns/writings of an another admirer of Mr Jinnah, AG Noorani. He has called Mr Jinnah great/greates leader but, to his credit, inspite of his having really admired Mr Jinnah, he never called Mr Jinnah far/fore sighted, or statesman or any thing of the sort. On the contrary, he has cursed Mr Jinnah in a very subtle manner when it came to J&K issue, Hyderabad and Mr Jinnah`s stand, and his actions, in general (no, nothing to do with secularism).

It is not that I am expecting any answer/s to the above posed questions. I put them there just to show that had things not moved in the direction they got moved (my having got bogged down to responding to posts which were ................... .......), we could have talked on those issues too.

MaheshG...

Please read my post 464 again... did I say that his quotes prove anything?

Even if (and thats a big if) he did manage ... which I seriously doubt he will... the quotes don`t really back up what he is trying to say or prove. I mean this guy seriously doesn`t understand metaphors.... for example when Gandhi calls humanity a ``Military organization`` clearly that can`t be cited as proof for a random claim that Gandhi was violent?


So you see it is not as simple as this. Please read HP`s post 336.


-YLH

PS: Using your logic.... Rajsinghi should have technically stood down when I brought up him the evidence he had been repeatedly asking for....

Mantolives #464,

If (let`s say IF) rajsinghi is able to back up his quotes with direct references will you back down?

Rajsinghi...


I am afraid I am forced to conclude that you`ve lost all balance. Plus you have double standards as every liar has.... let us see how far your posts stand up to reality.

452, 456 is merely an opinion as per your own logic. It is not true either, and 456 is based on a false pretext, which is designed to divert attention from the real criminals of the Calcutta riots which an unbiased reading of history will clearly tell who.

459 has no source cited. The reason why you have not cited a source is because you have copied it off some website. It is Opinion not a fact. This is using your logic by which you even condemned serious scholars like Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai as Jinnah apologists.


460 Again NO source. Opinion cited. No Primary source. Possibly off another website.

461 NO Source. Again opinion nothing else.. The reality is quite different. Accounts of M S M Sharma, and India`s first high commissioner to Pakistan are totally different. Jinnah`s personal role is lauded. He was called the Protector General of the Hindus.... Pakistan National Congress`s Hindu leaders in 1949 constantly referred to late Jinnah`s impartial and unbiased attitude and asked the Muslim league leaders to be fair and balanced. Even Hindvi who is a Jinnah-hater, accepts Jinnah was personally moved. You`ve again cleverly not mentioned the website address because you know it will discredit your post.


462 Again you`ve not quoted any source. Clearly you have ripped this one off another website. The quotes of the Muslim League leaders don`t prove what you are trying to prove.

463 is simply an indication of your own bigotry.


The truth remains ... and I quote from a primary source and not some Hindu nationalist website.... that Direct Action Day (the word taken from Nehru`s vocabulary) was a civil disobedience campaign in the manner that Congress had been following for years (and violence had been resulting for many years as well).... for the most part it was peaceful...
as Hindvi who is no Jinnah apologist admits because unlike Rajsinghi he atleast has the ability to accept the facts... and in Calcutta it went violent because of the attitude taken by the Hindu underworld which attacked the Muslims returning from the meeting.... and as `Patel gloated` more Muslims died in than Hindus....


There was clear cut definition of what Direct Action Day was supposed to be:

Jinnah released a press release two or days before Direct Action Day in which he said that ``16th August will be a day for peaceful hartal`` and he forbade Leaguers from taking any violent action.

Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...

``16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner.``

(Press Release : Jinnah 14th August 1946 )


1) K B Sayeed`s Formative Phase Page 154

2) Jinnah Papers Volume 5

3) Transfer of Power, Mansergh Volume 8 Pages 158-248

4) The sole Spokesman by Ayesha Jalal Page 216



And the call was followed to the last person ... as H.V Hodson, the constitutional advisor to the viceroy, who was by no means a reported:

16th August as the ``Direct action Day. On that day meetings would be held all over India to explain the league`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed off- as was manifestly the central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbances, with one tragic exception.


Now this was a man who had known all the leaders personally and he was from the Mountbatten camp so he did not have any cosy feelings towards Jinnah.... as such except a grudging admiration which he expresses early on in the book... he had no reason to express a pro-League opinion... in any event he is a 1000 times more balanced and credible than some online propaganda BS that my friend who seems to be inspired by Goebells is quoting.


The fact is that Calcutta Killings did not help the League... in actual reality it strengthened the hand of the Congress Party and Mahasabha (which had taken a bellicose and communal attitude as per Rajsinghi`s own source ``Banglapedia`` ) ... who wanted to divide Bengal... something which League did not want. The demand for Pakistan as embodied by the Lahore resolution had already been won through the 1945-1946 elections.... this merely destroyed the league`s case .... so the real beneficiaries of this violence were those who started it... local Congress leaders and Hindu Mahasabha.... these are the facts of History... deny it all you want.... but the truth is truth.

-YLH

Some interesting (?) quotes of that time, uttered by various leaders of Muslim League, whose chairman was Mr Jinnah..

These quotes show how poisonous the atmosphere had become and apologists of Direct Action Day would have has believed that it was meant to be a peaceful hartal (an oxymoron, given the situation at that time), and Mr Jinnah should be blameless even when he it was he under whose chairmanship thousands got killed, hundreds of thousands got physically injured...millions got uprooted as a result....

Some of the things said by Mr. Jinnah on this occasion are these:

“What we have done to-day is the most historic act in our history. Never have we in the whole history of the League done anything except by constitutional methods. But now we are forced into this position. Today we bid good-bye to constitutional methods.”

Again, referring to the new threat and programme of Direct Action, he said,

“To-day we have forged a pistol and are in a position to use it.”

Again, talking of the threat of Direct Action he said:

“We mean every word of it. We do not believe in equivocation.”

Then he quoted the Persian Poet, Firdausi, in these words:

“If you seek peace, we do not want War. But if you want War, we will accept it unhesitatingly.”

Still more provocative speeches, if possible, were made by other Muslim League leaders on this occasion. Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan, now Prime Minister of the Dominion of Pakistan, elucidating the implications of the Direct Action threat, said:

“Direct Action means resort to non-constitutional methods, and that can take any form which may suit the conditions under which we live. We cannot eliminate any methods. Direct Action means any action against the Law.”

Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, now a member of the Pakistan Government, declared:

“Pakistan can only be achieved through shedding blood of ourselves, and if need be, and if opportunity arose, by shedding blood of others. Muslims are no believers in Ahimsa.”

Raja Ghanzafar Ali Khan, lately also member of the Pakistan Government, speaking to a huge Muslim gathering at Lahore on the 31st August, 1946 outlined the Muslim League Direct Action as the economic political and social boycott of the Congress and ‘the following of a scorched earth policy.’

Mr. Jinnah held out the threat that Direct Action by Muslims would lead to one hundred times more destruction than the Direct Action of the Hindus (meaning the Congress).

Earlier ill the Convention of Muslim Legislators held in Delhi in April 1946, equally provocative and instigatory things had been said:

Ghulam Mustafa Shah Gilani said:

“Any attempt to prevent the establishment of Pakistan would lead to bloodshed.” Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan said:

“The Punjab Muslims do not believe in non-violence and should not, therefore, be given cause for grievance because once the Muslim lion is infuriated it would become difficult to subdue him.”

Sir Feroze Khan Noon had observed:

“I tell you this much that if we find that we have to fight Great Britain for placing us under one Central Hindu Raj, then the havoc which Muslims will plays will put to shame what Jenghez and Halaku Khan did.”

Sir Ghulam Hussain Hadayatullah, at that time Premier of Sind and later under Pakistan, Governor of the same Province, said:

“The Congress should understand that unless they make friends with us and accede to our demands there will he no peace in India.”

The last words bear a special significance in view of what was destined to happen in Bengal and the Punjab principally, and in several other Provinces of India, not long after.

Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy, Premier of Bengal at that time, spoke words still more ominous and pregnant with a sinister significance the full force of which was not realized by the country perhaps at the time.

“We await the clarion call of the Qaid-i-Azam.”

The ‘Clarian Call’ was answered about a fortnight later in the shape of the Calcutta, Noakhali and other riots in Bengal, the ghastliest and most terrible seen till then in India, to be bettered in this respect only by the Muslim holocaust of the minorities in the Punjab, in 1947.


The Muslim League formed a Council of Action to plan its Direct Action Programme. Its members were: Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan (now Prime Minister of Pakistan); Nawab Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot, (lately Premier of West Punjab), Mian Mumtaz Daulatana (lately Minister of West Punjab), Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan (several times Minister); Mian Iftikharuddin, Begum Shah Nawaz, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, I. I. Cundrigar and H. S. Suhrawardy (at that time Muslim League Premier of Bengal).

I don`t think it has still sunk in the interactor what is being implied here. It is not that Suharwardy does not equal Mr Jinnah. Mr Jinnah was the gang leader and Suharwardy was one of his lieutinents (spl?).

For example, when a guy is heading an organisation which is full of murderers, gangsters how the leader of that gang can claim he is the most law abiding citizen?

One of the slogans rending the air during Direct Action Day in Bengal...By Muslim League supporters, of course..

`` ‘Lar Kar lenge Pakistan’; ‘Mar Kar Lenge Pakistan’; ‘Dena Hoga Pakistan’; ‘Pakistan Kayam Karo’ ``

Crude translation: We will fight for Pakistan, We will die for Pakistan, You would have to give us Pakistan, Establish Pakistan.

And here is Mr Jinnah himself with these words...and the apologists of Direct Action Day say, Mr Jinnah is not to be blamed ...

`` Mr. Jinnah in a statement issued from Bombay on September 11, 1946 offered to the Hindus the choice between creating Pakistan and forcing a Civil War in the country.

Replying to a question seeking suggestions for the restoration of peace in India, he said:”

“In view of the horrible slaughter in various parts of India, I am of the opinion that the authorities, both Central and Provincial, should take up immediately the question of exchange of population to avoid brutal recurrence of that which had taken place where small minorities have been butchered by the overwhelming majorities.”

To the genius... I don`t know why you couldn`t figure out the simple fact that Direct Action Day was an India-wide call by a political party for a strike... whereas Gujurat was a riot incident that took place and its roots in the whole Godhara episode.

Therefore when HP asks a simple question: Why Calcutta with regard to Direct Action Day it is valid question.

The question you`ve asked about Gujurat is invalid, and illogical for the obvious reasons.

The post that Rajsinghi forgot to answer:

#336 by HP on September 17, 2004 11:45am PT
Raj Sahib,

I think you need to frame questions to YOU right first.

The only way you can prove that Jinnah wanted Danga Fassad on the Direct Action day, would be WORDS from his own mouth and there is no way you can find that quote. At this point you need to prove the INTENT.
From the historical POV you need to think and frame the questions to you along these lines:
Was it beneficial to Jinnah and the Muslim League to have Violence on the Direct Action Day?
If you believe that your answer is YES....Then
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.

You also need to look at the existing community relations picture on ground in Bengal at that time. If there were reasons to believe that communal emotions were running high in Bengal at that time then you may still have some case but then the violence can be traced back to ANY community and not Muslims or Jinnah alone.

You cannot argue Jinnah’s intent based on Suharwardi’s speech- which appears to be a run of the mill speech that politicians normally make and talk about Jaan dena or Maal dena.
You may also have to find instance in pre-partition India where several peaceful demonstration turned violent even though on the face of it no politician was looking for violent outcome of that demonstration.

I think this whole debate is about the perception. If you think you are right then Yasser cannot change your mind and vice versa.

In other word don’t sweat too much on this.

What you wanna discuss is : Whether Direct Action Day call actually forced the partition?

You`ve been calling anyone who doesn`t agree with your point of view a Jinnah-apologist...

Pray tell is Hindvi a Jinnah apologist too? He is probably more critical than anyone else of Jinnah... but atleast he had the sanity of accepting facts as facts... is it because he is critical of Jinnah for his own reasons and not out spite, hatred and outright bigotry?


In post 96 which you had previously declared to be mine Hindvi no fan of Jinnah writes:

that Jinnah was equivalent to Modi/Thakeray or even Savarkar: this is lunacy. Cold and dictatorial as Jinnah was he was nowhere close to Modi, Modi is closer to Goebbels he is an idealogue who has always been an RSS pracharak and an awoved Brahmachari (its another matter he abandoned his wife a few months after marriage, she lives alone and teaches in some school in Gujrat for the past 20 years) like Vajpayee (who also has lived in with his mu boli bhen and her husband and children all his adult life). Sure Jinnah gave the call for direct action day (that was the only call he gave in his life) but that call was given nation wide and yet violence only broke out in Calcutta, thanks to surawardy. Even in calcutta the fight was between two equal communities and muslims actually suffered more as Patel gloated in his letter.


All in all my friends Modi didnt fulfill his rajdharma he subverted and used it to manufacture a genocide where there was none. Compare this to Nehru who was in the midst of a true Genocide which he had not created and which he tried to prevent often with his own hands running up and down delhi in police jeeps.or for that matter with Jinnah who atleast wept when he saw a destitute hindu refugee child in a karachi camp, modi on the other hand was trying desperately to close all such camps, he continued to make inflammatory speeches about the mians till long after the riots.

There can be no comparison with even Thakeray, the kind of unconstitutional and mob/goon behaviour he and his sainiks habe indulged in for the last 30 years is outside Jinnahs orbit, as is the hate speech he publishes in Samana, Jinnah was always civil in his speech. most importantly the way thakeray`s sainiks engineered the breaking of babri masjid or the subsequent riots in bombay in which there wa a one sided wiping out of muslims is in another league alltogether.

Looks like there is full fledged industry of Mr Jinnah`s apologists...and a prospering one..For, here was a man who for years kept on spreading communal hatred, which resulted in thousands dying and millions uprooted and we are told that we should believe, he was not to be blamed for all that and he was a secular ....

Following also shows that riots did spread out of Bengal too..

Acharya Kripalani arrived at certain conclusions regarding the Noakhali trouble, which are as follows:-

1. The attack on the Hindu population in the districts of Noakhali and Tipperah was previously arranged and prepared for. It was deliberate, if not directly engineered by Muslim League. It was the result of Muslim League propaganda. The local evidence all went to prove that prominent League leaders in the villages had a large hand in it.

2. The authorities had warnings about what was coming. The warnings were conveyed to them orally and then in writing by prominent Hindus in the areas concerned.

3. The Muslim officials connived at the preparations going on. A few encouraged. There was a general belief among the Mussalmans that the Government would take no action if anything was done against the Hindus.

4. The modus operandi was for the Muslims to collect in batches of hundreds and sometimes thousands and to march to Hindu villages or Hindu houses in villages of mixed population. They first demanded subscriptions for the Muslim League and sometimes for the Muslim victims of the Calcutta riots. These enforced subscriptions were heavy, sometimes amounting to Rs. 10,000 and more. Even after the subscriptions were realized, the Hindu population was not safe. The same or successive crowd appeared on the scene later and looted the Hindu houses. The looted houses in most cases were burnt……… Sometimes before a house was looted the inmates were asked to embrace Islam. However, even conversion did not give immunity against loot and arson.

7. Even after looting, arson and murder the Hindus in the locality were not safe unless they embraced Islam. The Hindu population therefore to save themselves had to embrace Islam en masse……… All the images of gods in Hindu houses were destroyed and all the Hindu temples of the affected area were looted and burnt.

14. The police did not function during the riots. They are doing merely patrol duty now. They say that they had and have no orders to fire except in self-defence. The question of definding themselves never arose, because they did not interfere with the rioters.

Scouting any suggestion that the trouble may be economic the Acharya added, “Not a single rich Muslim house had been looted. To me it appeared to be absolutely communal and absolutely one-sided.”

QUOTE:

`` Exactly the same pattern as in Noakhali and Tipperah was repeated during the next five months in other parts of India. These features were common to all these occurrences.

1. Places of occurrence were all heavy Muslim-majority areas-the minority attacked were Hindu or Hindu-Sikh. Successively they are: Noakhali and Tipperah (October, 1946) Hazara (December, 1946 and January, 1947); Rawalpindi (March, 1947 For several weeks); Jhelum, Attock, Campbellpur, Dera Ismail Khan, Hazara, Multan, Gujrat, Gujranwala, Sargodha (all as before-mentioned). Lahore and Amritsar towns had an overwhelming Muslim majority in their populations though in the latter district as a whole the non-Muslims outnumbered the Muslims by a small percentage. In both towns from March, 1947 onwards terrible outrages were perpetrated by Muslims on Hindus and Sikhs, the decisive result in either case being obtained only on the partition of the Punjab.