Pakistan Travelogue II

Manto,

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

Regards

The real face of Gandhi`s non-violence

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

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

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

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


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

Re: # 779

Ha ha is not a good answer.

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

#778 by Mantolives

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 777

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

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

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

These questions remain unanswered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#775 by Mantolives

[Harish Hyd, you are losing it.]

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

[Your sources were journalese at best.]

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

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

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

Re: # 773

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

Logic and truth has a strange effect on you chaps.

Re: # 774

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

#770 by Mantolives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer this before hoping to get your questions answered.

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

Re: # 771

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Re: # 769

Dear Sir,

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

I`ll answer your questions despite their complete irrelevance:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


And last but not the least:

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

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

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

Manto:
read # 724