Talk:Direct Action Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Direct Action Day received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Direct Action Day article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2 | |||
| WikiProject India / Politics | (Rated B-Class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Peer review - March 2008 |
Contents |
[edit] POV and clearly inaccurate material
"The protest triggered massive riots in Calcutta,[7][8] instigated[4][7] by the Muslim League and its Volunteer Corps against Hindus and Sikhs"
Until such 'sourced' but clearly point of view material remains in the heading I don't see how this section can be seen as neutral. Can out Indian friends Please leave the 'disputed' status until this is resolved and the article actually reflects truth rather than shows the leaders of the Muslim league to have 'deliberately encouraged' fatal attacks on other religious communities . Khokhar (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Khokhar (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the sources used, especially the pertinent paragraphs (pages 111-114) from the book "Muslim Societies" ([1]) by Sato Tsugitaka, and the Banglapedia article ([2]). These show that although the exact definition of "Direct action" was not clear to either the leaders of the League or the mass, there was preparation by the league activists towards rioting. A "very strong militant current" ran through Muslim masses (not my words, I am quoting the book). Have a look at the appeal issued by the central league leaders: "Today let every Muslim also take this pledge of sacrifice in the cause of national freedom... Pakistan is ours... We shall fight for it. We shall die for it. Take it we must, or periah." (available in the page 113 of the book).
- If you have some time, you can go through all other sources listed in the article, where there are description of preparation for the direct action day by the League.
- This article merely relates what happened, on the basis of available sources. If the sources show that leaders encouraged attacks, the article just tells that, it is not made up. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. My real issue with the article so far, as noted, is with the first paragraph and specifically the part
"riots in Calcutta, instigated[4][7] by the Muslim League and its Volunteer Corps against Hindus and Sikhs,[1][8]"
As you pointed out it is sourced and clearly states that the Muslim league directed pre-determined violence towards other religious communities. Before I move on to the sources I just wanted to clear up a couple of points you raised, firstly the word 'Direct action' doesn't necessarily mean violence 'should' be used and it certainly does not mean 'riot', it is also accepted that the word 'hartal' or 'general strike' could be used just as well and so all three words can, in this instance at least, be considered synonymous or the same. I would also like to clear up that, I quote "Today let every Muslim also take this pledge of sacrifice in the cause of national freedom... Pakistan is ours... We shall fight for it. We shall die for it. Take it we must, or periah" , doesn't have to mean Jinnah wanted violence, he was/could simply be stating that Indian Muslims must strongly and passionately fight for Pakistan (by having a general strike and closing their business for the day) and not necessarily by being violent towards other communities, it is in fact very common for leaders to use such words for political motivation and not necessarily violence. I don't think I have come across hardly any respected historians who hold the view that Jinnah wanted violence, quite the opposite, and he clearly and unambiguously stated his opposition to violence on a number of occasions. There are many sources showing Jinnah's views against any form of violence. He even contrasted with Gandhi's view of civil disobedience and only, I quote, "resigned from Congress in 1920 when he became disillusioned with the violence and communal passions unleashed by Gandhi's Congress-Khilafat civil disobedience campaigns" ([3]), another source from a site used in the very section in question, here ([4]), and another, reporting talks between Mountbatten and the leaders of the Subcontinent, here ([5])
However that's Semantics and shouldn't really be considered a core issue and I will only try to disprove any form of 'violence' or 'rioting' was 'instigated' or directed in a pre-determined manner by The Muslim league's leadership.
"Instigated" ;Source no 4, links to ([6])
I have read a through the work of the first five authors and a lot of the sixth; Mr Nariak; who has been quoted as the source here. Though I found the some author's views and choice of sources to be, at times, overly critical and somewhat one-sided, and some simply didn't understand what they were writing; such as Knut s. vikor's assertions here ([7]) which explicitly say that a Scholar must follow a single madh'hab or school of though when in fact Scholars as renowned as Ahmad ibn Hanbal; himself considered founder of the Hanbali Madh'hab or school of fiqh studied from scholars such as Hanafi mad'dhab judge Abu Yusuf and Imam Al-Shafi’i the founder of the Shafi'i madh'hab. I was, however, impressed at the way some of the authors tried to explain and understand each aspect covered and used a a wide enough variety of sources to be considered genuine work. I also found the work by Mushirul Hassan quite interesting, as he tried the explain the mind-set of the average Bengali and how he percieved it was influenced, here ([8]).
As far as the source in question, by Mr Nariak, is concerned, I think it is, at best, flimsy. The sourced page describes how a British 'newspaper reporter' apparently got the 'impression' that Jinnah wanted a 'mass unconstitutional violence' and then goes on to say he was probably mistaken and the secretary explained to him what Jinnah really meant, I wonder why he said the part about the 'mass unconstitutional violence' and more importantly why Jinnah would even say such a thing to a news reporter.. In any case the author then goes on to explain what 'a military intelligence officer had said to a member of the American consulate in Bombay', I can't see how this can be considered a reliable source, of course I am not doubting the author's intentions were probably good.
"Instigated" ;Source no 7, links to ([9])
In this case I take the source to be related to this, I quote;
"The Muslim League Chief Minister in his address reportedly assured the audience that the military and police had been 'restrained'. This was interpreted by the gathering as an open invitation to commit violence on its rival community"
This does not in any way prove that the Minister asked the crowd to commit violence, it would be fair to argue that such remarks are foolish and the minster should have known they could be used in the manner alleged, however, they could easily have been taken out of context as no police/military officer can be expected to stand there and watch as such killing takes place, quite likely against their own friends and community. It is in fact a lot more likely that it was a case of tit for tat attacks, which were expected to happen by members of both communities before the riots, but had probably worsened due to the politically charged environment, it was not necessarily caused by the actions or intentions of just the Muslim League, specially given, I quote from the same source " Acid bombs were manufactured and stored in Hindu-owned factories long before the outbreak. Calcutta's Hindu blacksmiths were mobilised to prepare spearheads and other weapons".
"against Hindus and Sikhs" ; source 1 links to ([10])
You will notice this one no longer works, however, I took the time to search and found what, I believe, was the index to the intended page, here ([11]). unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be linking to the correct page.
"against Hindus and Sikhs" ; source 8 links to ([12])
this source does not any point single out a certain community/organisation (such as the Muslim league) as the instigators of violence against other communities, in fact it states, conversely, that communal rioting took place, I can't see the logic in it being used as a source in the context of the article's wording.
I hope you don't mind my lengthy response .Khokhar (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Instigation" continues...
Hi! In your post you admit that "As you pointed out it is sourced and clearly states that the Muslim league directed pre-determined violence towards other religious communities. Before I move on to the sources I just wanted to clear up a couple of points you raised, firstly the word '[Direct action]' doesn't necessarily mean violence 'should' be used and it certainly does not mean 'riot', it is also accepted that the word 'hartal' or 'general strike' could be used just as well and so all three words can, in this instance at least, be considered synonymous or the same"
Yes, I also agree. The clear meaning of Direct Action was not clear to anyone. So, parts of Muslim mobs got ready with arms, and parts of Hindu mob got ready with arms. Both sides were well-prepared and cold blooded killing took place on both sides. (see [13], Bengal Divided by Joya Chatterjee, pp232, 233). Communal rioting took place in which people of both Hindu and Muslim religions were killed.
You have precisely summarised that, "It is in fact a lot more likely that it was a case of tit for tat attacks, which were expected to happen by members of both communities before the riots, but had probably worsened due to the politically charged environment". True. Tit for tat attacks. Now, where did that "tit" come from. From the ambiguous publicity (pamphlets/speech) of the League. Speech by Nazimuddin, the inflammatory articles in newspapers, ambiguity in terms of what direct action means, and "foolish" remarks by Suhrawardy - these are all instigation. You cannot expect the Chief Minister to say to the mass to go and riot in public. Suhrawardy did not either.
As you have told, regarding Suhrawardy's remark on "restraint" on police, "it would be fair to argue that such remarks are foolish and the minster should have known they could be used in the manner alleged". Yes, such remarks was foolish, and that;s what F.J Burrows (governor of Bengal) also thought. Burrows reported that such remarks were "an open invitation to disorder" to "an uneducated audience" ( page 115, Muslim Societies, Sato Tsugikata)).
On the page 112 of that book, we get a published agenda of the day from the League that does not have any violence in plan. In fact, as I have told in my above post, the meaning of Direct Action was not clear to either all the leaders or the mass.
However, on page 113 of the book, we see that "Reflecting the militant mood of the central leadership, Khwaja Najimuddin, the former premier of Bengal, announced that 'the Muslim population of Bengal know very well what direct action would mean and so we need not bother to give them any lead.' He is also reported to have said that the 'Muslims would not be confined to non-violence.'" "The Muslim National Guard, the voluntary organization of the Muslim League,performed quasi-military drills is several locations in the city" In fact, in page 114, the book says that "a wide range of political vies were afloat and different strategies were being discussed" in early half of the August, including,"heroic sacrifice" "social revolution" "open violence" "tactical restraint"
On page 114, the book says, "Some the Bengali newspapers and pamphlets carried highly inflammatory articles". These speech by Nazimuddin, the inflammatory articles, ambiguity in terms of what direct action means, and "foolish" remarks by Suhrawardy - these are all instigation. On page 233 of Bengal Divided ([14]), it says, "Suhrawardy himself much of the responsibility of this blood-letting since he issued an open challenge to the Hindus and was grossly negligent (deliberately or otherwise) in his failure to quell the rioting nce it had broken out." Also implicated were Hindu leaders, who made sure Hindu mobs were well-prepared for retaliation.
On page 119, it also adds that there were quite a few number of Muslim leaders who held more sober views. During the riots, leaders from Muslim League, Congress, Communist Party tried to pacify furious mobs at places.(page 119) So, we see there were pacifist efforts on both sides also.
Another good read is this, where we see preparedness from the both sides. However, this also shows that Chief Minister Suhrawardy obstructed police in controlling riots (this is also mentioned in our wikipedia article, with reference from Rashid, Harun-or (1987). The Foreshadowing of Bangladesh: Bengal Muslim League and Muslim Politics, 1936-1947,. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
So, we see both sides were prepared for violence. But why? because both sides expected violence. And why? Because of the League's (who was in power at that time in Bengal) ambiguous definition of direct action, not controlling/directing mobs, and some League leaders' militant outlook, inflammatory propaganda. Hindu mobs did not START it, Muslims mobs did, thanks to the leaders being there who already paved the path towards the riot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just to sum up, we agree that Direct Action does not equate rioting and the latter was a result of other factors already present. It is undeniable that at it led to rioting, but to say, unambiguously, that the general intention of the 'Muslim leagues leadership' was to instigate rioting, as it says in the article, is not balanced. I will also return to the points you raised concerning the word 'instigated'.
It would however be fair to indicate the complexity of the situation (and thus direct the reader to the background section for a clearer understanding) as most of the reasons for the 'riots' were due to already present communal and political tensions rather than to unequivocally suggest it was the leadership's unanimous intention. Something like "The call for direct action (which can be linked to the wikipedia page Direct Action) led to communal violence and rioting down due to already present factors". These factors are already explained in the background section and this can, of course, be expanded slightly to include the argument that 'some' of the Muslim leagues leader's (such as saharwardi) remarks could have been taken out of context or that there was already a sense that violent may ensue and the general community was, to a certain extant (as shown in sources already mentioned concerning the Hindu community ([15]) already prepared for such a eventuality. The other sources you mentioned, such as the leaflets/newspapers, which I am sure was happening on both sides, can of course also be added.
It is also believed that the extant of the violence was not expected, as it is already said and (sourced) in the background section "In his book The Great Divide, H V Hodson recounted, "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 off — 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.([16])
We also agree the words 'against Hindus and Sikhs', in the context of the mentioned sentence are, firstly, not sourced and should not be there anyway as they give the impression that the general Muslim League leadership explicitly asked for the mentioned communities to be targeted. At no point did any leader specifically say a certain religious community 'should be targeted' and so it should really say something like violence took place between communities due to (as mentioned) certain, already present, communal conditions. I understand that the word instigated also has a role to play here and will now return to the points you raised.
You have, for the most past, summed up that the violence was in fact prepared and directed by both sides and that many sources show this. You finished off with the statement:
"So, we see both sides were prepared for violence. But why? because both sides expected violence. And why? Because of the League's (who was in power at that time in Bengal) ambiguous definition of direct action, not controlling/directing mobs, and some League leaders' militant outlook, inflammatory propaganda. Hindu mobs did not START it, Muslims mobs did, thanks to the leaders being there who already paved the path towards the riot"
"because both sides expected violence. And why? Because of the League's (who was in power at that time in Bengal) ambiguous definition of direct action, not controlling/directing mobs, and some League leaders' militant outlook, inflammatory propaganda"
A perceived ambiguity in explaining the word Direct action, which was probably referred to as 'hartal' by the lay people, would not be a fair reason on it's own to assume instigation. As for not controlling/directing mobs, as explained, it would not be reasonable to assume the police/military would stand by and do nothing, what was stated in the source ([17]), I quote "The League's rally at Ochterloney Monument on that day was considered as the 'largest ever Muslim assembly'. The Muslim League Chief Minister in his address reportedly assured the audience that the military and police had been 'restrained'", when not taken out of context, it seems quite clear the chief minister's comments were aimed at allowing the protest (as such large gathering are generally not allowed) to continue and should not be construed to mean 'let the violence continue'. The inflammatory propaganda, as already stated, was probably present on both sides and can not be taken as evidence against the Muslim league or it's leaders in general.
You also take a lot of sources from Bengal divided by Joya Chatterji ([18]), Though a lot of her work is sourced and clearly well thought out, I feel it is not entirely neutral and some of what is stated is her point of view, one such example being a chapter called and based on 'Hindu unity and Muslim Tyranny', neutral historians generally do not lead you into such pre-conceptions.
You state that "Hindu mobs did not START it, Muslims mobs did"
This seems to be the core of the argument for the Muslim league being responsible for 'instigating', as mentioned in the article, you admit that violence took place on both sides and some was prepared well in advance, however you go on to state that 'Muslim mobs did' start the violence, even IF this was true it does not implicate the Muslim league (as mentioned in the article), but as you have accepted, the Muslim league might have asked for a 'general strike' but they (the Muslim league in general) did not ask for violence.
As for whether 'Muslim mobs did', seeing as some preparations were made well in advance, as acknowledged by many sources including those you posted, and as stated in one of the earlier sources in the article ([19]) which sates, I quote "Acid bombs were manufactured and stored in Hindu-owned factories long before the outbreak. Calcutta's Hindu blacksmiths were mobilised to prepare spearheads and other weapons". It would be impossible to be certain if Muslims or Hindu's 'started' the violence, for all we know, it could have been a case of a group of Muslims, while peacefully protest marching, being attacked by 'acid bombs' and this could mean 'Hindus STARTED' the violence. However such a claim would be dubious and so it is fair to state both sides had prepared for violence in advance which got terribly out of control. Khokhar (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have requested a copy of Burrows' telegram from British Library. Looks like they have moved the entire site here and the specific link seems to be still broken(Source 4). Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Back to instigation —
Your claim that who started the riot cannot be ascertain has been disproven by many sources. You are saying that because both sides were prepared for violence, no one can say who started the violence. Which is wrong.
It was Muslim League's strike. For that strike to be successful, entire Calcutta had to shut down. Hindus and Sikhs had the exact opposite view. They believed in "Akhand Bharat" and they were determined to keep their businesses open. Therefore, the violence was started by Muslim League cadres trying to enforce the strike. If Muslim League was not looking for violence, Muslim parts of Calcutta would have total completely shut down and in non-muslim parts life would have been like any other day. At the end of the day both sides would have gone home happy as a clam. But because any open business may have been construded as a failure of the strike, Muslim League sent enforcers to close shops. So Muslim League is culpable of starting the violence.
This claim has been backed by citations provided.
I cannot go into more detail until May, 8, because right now time is short for me. If we cannot resolve it here, we can go to dispute resolution. Sumanch (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Please provide reliable and neutral sources to back this, I have commented in detail on every aspect you have mentioned with sources, almost all the sources in the section in question are either not present, unspecific or unreliable. Khokhar (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, if you can not currently provide sources due to time constraints, we can take a break and leave the matter for a short period as you may also be waiting for the response from the British library. I am sure we can work out a mutually acceptable and balanced view (please read the first few paragraphs of my last post), I have nothing against dispute resolution but it should only be considered as a last resort. Khokhar (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Response from British Library
Dear Sumanch
Thank you for your message.
The link in question, about the Calcutta riots in the summer of 1946, appears no longer to work, bringing up part of the text of an entirely different document: colleagues are investigating the matter amd we hope to be able to restore it as soon as possible. However, as the site does provide the precise reference (i.e. folios 95 - 107 of the volume @ shelfmark L/PJ/8/655), you should easily be able to place an order for a copy with our Imaging Services, bearing in mind that payment must be in £ sterling. Please see the information and links @ http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/atyourdesk/imaging/imaginghome.html. The cost is likely to be £27.10. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely,
Hedley Sutton
APAC Reference Services
Tel.: +44 (0)207 412 7865
[edit] "Muslim League Instigated" continued 2
The link to the British Library's 'Direct Action Day' day source is now working correctly [20]
I have read through it and found it to contain, for the most part, material already discussed and nothing to categorically back the claims made against the Muslim league, in fact it agrees with almost everything I have already stated. Here's some of what is stated:
A copy of a secret report written on 22 August 1946 to the Viceroy Lord Wavell, from Sir Frederick John Burrows, concerning the Calcutta riots.
(I have added the narratives)
Discussing the main underlying causes:
"The setting. Omitting the more remote causes of the riots - the long struggle for power between Hindus and Muslims, in which Calcutta is a focal point, the weakening of our authority which is an inevitable consequence of our impending departure, the dislocation of the normal life of Calcutta by war and famine, and the presence of a Muslim Ministry in a predominantly Hindu city"
Burrows views on Suhrawardy, and the decision to call a public holiday:
"If shops and markets had been generally open, I believe that there would have been even more looting and murder than there was; the holiday gave the peaceable citizens the chance of staying at home. There was an adjournment motion in the Legislative Council on August -15th about the declaration of a holiday. The Chief Minister, defending the decision, said that though the Muslims would observe the day peacefully and in a disciplined manner, there was always a danger of conflict arising; Congressmen had in the past enforced hartals by violence, and Muslims might be tempted to follow their example, which in the present political atmosphere was bound to five rise to communal conflict. It was to minimize the risk of such conflicts that he had declared a holiday."
Burrows views on instigation:
"4. As regards the probabilities of trouble and its possible extent, we found it extremely difficult to arrive at any confident appreciation in advance. Outwardly both major parties and also the independent Schedule Caste leaders, who had announced their intention to support the Muslim protest, had emphasised the necessity of keeping the peace. On the other hand the atmosphere was admittedly explosive and we realised"
Attempts to stop the violence:
"The situation deteriorated during the forenoon and at 2.40 p.m. the Chief Secretary rang up my Secretary to say that the position had become so serious that he supported the request of the Commissioner of Police that the Army should be called in at once in aid of the civil power. ...... Ten minutes later the Commissioner of Police reported that the Chief Minister had already agreed to the calling in of troops"
Clearly none of the sources have backed the allegations made regarding the Muslim league's involvement or "instigation" whether in favour of violence or against any specific communities. I see no reason why the allegations in the articles' main heading should be present, I have already made suggestions regarding how the article can be balanced and fair, and await input or any objections before making the changes. Regarding dispute resolution, I can not see any tangible reason for this matter to be referred as there are no reliable sources or evidence to back the disputed section's allegations, however if both sides are not satisfied, as a last resort that option is always there. Khokhar (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made the changes discussed and left the reasons for the violence, which were clearly complicated, to be explained in a balanced manner in later sections, I have also left the neutrality tag, temporarily, in case further discussions are required.Khokhar (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality tag removed.Khokhar (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The underlying issue is clear. Muslims were the kings of major part of India when British arrived. When British were about to leave, Muslims realised that they will be numerical minority in a democracy in united India and may not get political power. So their plan was to cut out all Muslim dominated areas and form a new muslim country.
It was definitely a good idea to separate religion based communities. History has proven this, if one notes that majority of all current fightings in world originated from quarrel between two religions in same country. Example Sudan, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Phillipines, Bosnia, Chechnya and many more. If one assumes Communism itself is a religion ( sort of a null religion ) then the percentage increses further. Only minority cases of todays hostility have same religion on both sides, the main issues being race or caste.
Nevertheless, Indian Congress opposed division of India because the settlements were mixed and it was difficult to identify religion based territories and draw borders. To force the issue on Congress, few Muslims got an idea of cleansing Hindus from muslim pockets so that the border lines are clearely visible.
The then Bengal was Muslim majority state, having muslim dominated administration. The cleansing accidentally started here with few incidents of attacking Hindus, but Calcutta being Hindu majority town, the retaliation was prompt. This started a chain reaction in other areas parts of country, that eventually convinced the Congress that it is better to divide the country than kill each other. Thus Pakistan was formed.
Now we know that "Religion is the biggest man killer". Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.68.100 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
