Banner Advertiser

Monday, September 19, 2011

[mukto-mona] Police atrocity On Jamaat workers--editorial



 

 

Police atrocity On Jamaat workers

 As a result of Police obstructing the Jammate Islami program and subsequent police action and clash about two  hundred persons have been injured,one hundred arrested and number of transports have been damaged. We have seen in the Tv footage the merciless beating by police .Reports say that police also raided hospital to arrest the injured. The height of it is that the Superintendent of the hospital was arrested.

Apart from that senior Jamaat central leaders including AZharul Islam, the secretary General of the party ,have been arrested from Jamaat central office

UNB has reported that At least 17 vehicles including three police cars were burnt in the capital on monday as riot police clashed with Jamaat-e-Islami activists demanding release of their top leaders.Witnesses said police charged batons and fired barrage of tear gas shells to disperse hundreds of Jamaat-e-Islami activists who gathered at the Diploma Engineers Institute at Kakrail this afternoon to observe their two-day demonstration program.The pitched battle broke out at about 4pm when police obstructed the demonstrators. Soon the clashes spread out to Paltan, Bijoynagar, Fakirerpool and Malibagh areas.Helmeted police in full riot gear used dozens of tear gas canisters to disperse the Jamaat activists turning the entire area starting from Kakrail crossing to Purana Paltan and Fakirerpool to Malibagh.”

We condemn the police action.The processionists had all the right to hold peaceful protest. Police should not have obstructed the procession. The peaceful space for political action is reducing. This will increase violence for which the authorities will be responsible.The arrest of senior political leaders from their office is unacceptable. So is the arrest of a senior doctor from the hospital

 



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow



Though Jinnah called for direct action, Suhrawardi was one of the planners to implement it.  He fell out with Jinnah, only after he approached Gandhi for peace.  After the Calcutta riot, Maulana Akram Khan floated a no confidence motion against the 'Prime' Minister of Bengal, but he was saved by Jogen Mandal.  Jogen Mandal had believed that his alliance with  Muslim League would enhance his personal career as well as the lot of the Scheduled Castes.  However, after the East Pakistan riots in 1950 which was instigated by the Govt. of Pakistan, he approached the administration to save the lower caste Hindus, most of the higher caste Hindus had already left for India.  Liaquat Ali Khan issued an arrest warrant for him and he escaped for India.  He sent a resignation letter from the cabinet position from Calcutta.  For more details, one may read the appendices of "My People Uprooted" by Tathagata Roy.  Without the Scheduled Caste votes for Pakistan, East Pakistan would not be a reality.  It may also be reminded that the districts of Khulna and Jessore were in India as per Radcliff Commission.  These were later exchanged with Maldah and Murshidabad, as the rail connection with Calcutta is through these places.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

I was talking about the creation of Pakistan as a whole, not partition of Bengal per se. The history of partition of Bengal is different from the Pakistan movement. Many Muslim leaders, including Suhrawardi, did not support partition of Bengal. They wanted an independent Bengal. Suhrawadi was the Chief Minister of the whole Bengal. Why would he support division of Bengal? It makes perfect sense. It was Jogen Mondal, who is responsible for the division of Bengal. Suhrawardi was a true Nationalist.

 

But, Suhrawadi whole heartedly supported Jinnah's Pakistan movement to create a Homeland for Muslims, and that's why he supported Jinnah's call for the direct action in Bengal; he called for a strike throughout Bengal. But, some people exploited the situation for their own interests, and created communal tension, which culminated into to an unprecedented communal riot and gave birth to communal hatred among the people of Bengal. That communal hatred spilled over to Noakhali and the massacre there was worse than Calcutta. Even Jogen Mondal had to submit his resignation from Jinnah's cabinet and flee to West Bengal to save his own life.

 

However, I learned many things about Suhrawadi from his speech. I want to thank you for that.

 
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Mon, 9/19/11, nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com> wrote:

From: nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 5:05 PM


 
Where did you get that Suhrawardy called for Direct Action program? It was League's call and namely Jinnah made that call as an All India Muslim League Leader, NOT Suhrawardy. At that time Suhrawardy was not holding any official post of All India Muslim League rather doing Bengal's politics certainly belonging to Muslim League but that was Bengal Muslim League, which did not make the call (rather can say had NOT that authority to call for program like that) of Direct Action and he was holding the position of Bengal's Chief Minister at that time, which was attributed at that time as Premier of Bengal. At Suhrawardy's Premiership the Great Calcutta killing, the Hindu Muslim communal Riot, occurred and a certain quarter of Hindu Press turned critical to Suhrawardy's administration and they personally condemned Suhrawardy to let loose the 'Muslim Killers on innocent Hindus" - other than those Hindu media there were none to condemn Suhrawardy for that Riot and killing rather all along Suhrawardy worked for Hindu-Muslim parity in Bengal and thus till the end he tried utmost along with Mr. Abul Hashim, the Secretary of Bengal Muslim League, and Mr. Sarat Bose and Dr. Kiron Shankar Roy as their allay in the other side namely the Hindus, to get Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal but at the beginning it was Hindu Mohashova Leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee and later Nehru-Patel's Congress took position against United Bengal and later the part of Bengal Muslim Leaguers who belonged to Eastern Bengal such as Bengal Muslim League President Moulana Akram Kha, Khwaja Najimuddin, Nurul Amin etc. jumped in for divided Bengal (as Congress and segment of Hindu Leadership were demanding) just to corner Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy politically in Bengal's politics because Suhrawardy belonged to West Bengal (Medinipur) and if Undivided United Bengal would attain by any chance then Calcutta would be the base of Bengal's politics and those Muslim Leaguers feared that that would give Suhrawardy and his Politics within Muslim League an extra advantage and edge so that those group of Bengal Muslim Leaguers for petty political interest initiated new stream within Bengal Muslim League politics to establish divided Bengal's mecca in Dacca instead of Calcutta just to size up Suhrawardy politically!
Those Dacca based Bengal Muslim Leaguers first met with Jinnah and expressed their willingness to join in Jinnah's ONE Pakistan by forsaking United Bengal and Calcutta and certainly Jinnah welcomed them to form an unscientific country keeping 1100 miles apart 2 lands! But at that same time Suhrawardy was fighting for Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal! It was first the Hindu Mohashova leader Dr. Mukharjee, then Nehru-Patel's Congress took stand against Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal and the betrayal within Bengal Muslim League to forsake this practical demand to get Undivided Independent Bengal eventually hurt and weakened Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim segment of Bengal Muslim League's movement to achieve greater Bengal as an Independent Country and at the end they had to concede for one Pakistan solution due to practical reasons but after getting complete guarantee and assurance from Jinnah that Bengal would be in the driving seat of the new country and all the provinces would enjoy absolute autonomy as Sher-e-Bangla's Lahore Resolution envisioned only then Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim group agreed to join in Jinnah's Pakistan !!
Suhrawardy pointed out repeatedly that the long time capital of All India was Calcutta and the infrastructure of Capital city Calcutta was established mostly by the toils, hard labors and raw materials of Eastern Bengal's poor peasants – so without Calcutta and/or part of Calcutta and/or its lion share the divided Eastern Bengal could not be sustained – so Eastern Bengal needed some form of settlement on that issue but surprisingly Muslim League leadership of Bengal did not show any interest for Bengal's wealth sharing matter and left that without even demanding that ever (as we did the same blunder in dealing with Pakistan too)! Suhrawardy was so frustrated with Bengal Muslim League leadership's strange attitude that's why he did not go to Pakistan for some time after the division of India rather stayed back in Calcutta and demanding to settle that wealth sharing do or die issue for divided Eastern Bengal. West Bengal and its politics certainly turned sensitive to Suhrawardy's that wealth sharing demand for Calcutta city and its infrastructure as they were antagonist to his Undivided Independent Bengal movement. So, Suhrawardy was nothing but the nemesis to divided India and Bengal's politics and press. As I mentioned that a segment of Indian Press was very much critical to Suhrawardy due to his bonafide role and fight for United Bengal or getting share of Calcutta for divided Bengal and thus they portrayed him NOT only as the villain rather the killer and butcher of Bengal politics but other than those Hindu Press there was no clue what evil Suhrawardy did in his life time!
Regarding Great Calcutta Killing and Suhrawardy's role in it I can refresh my memory thus: at the time of riot as a Premier Suhrawardy personally came out to the street along with his foot soldiers the students of Islamia College (young Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was Mr. Suhrawardy's right hand man in student front at that time and definitely afterwards too) and roamed around the city to protect Hindu-Muslim neighborhoods through his physical presence along with his followers at the moment of grave crisis and that caused the overzealous segment of Hindu press to portray Suhrawardy as personally involved in killing of Hindus at the Rioting time, which notion is nothing but silly! It is needless to say that the famous movie 'Gandhi' was story based – certainly not History based and the portrayal of Suhrawardy and many other events and characters there were NOT representing real history all the time! That is movie NOT history!! Our many friends here and there buy those notions and portrayal of Suhrawardy by segment of Hindu press very easily without corroborating that from any other credible sources and that is pathetic!!!
In Pakistan politics once Deputy Speaker Mr. Shahed Ali was murdered in the Assembly while Presiding the Session and in the midst of melee someone threw a chair which hit the Deputy Speaker and eventually at the Hospital Mr. Ali was succumbed to death and the total blame was given by the government party Muslim League to opposition member young leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman but all the independent inquiry, press photos, witnesses all indicated that the chair was thrown from the treasury bench (from the side of ruling government party –the Muslim League) but blame went to innocent one just to make some political points and still some humbugs believe Mujib was the killer of Deputy Speaker Shahed Ali but which is interesting that staying in power for 24 years that Muslim League only accused and kept that accusation alive against Mujib but never ever tried to bring him to justice – not even file a case against Mujib for that murderous act! In division of India politics Suhrawardy was turned villain – murderer due to political reasons – purposes – other than certain quarter of Indian Press no contemporary leader and/or administrative officer and/or British Raj people had accused Suhrawardy for the same!
At the end I am just putting Mr. Suhrawardy's own words to justify his acts and deeds in Bengal and All Indian politics for better understanding of a true Statesman: but certainly you have the liberty to continue your debate on this matter but we expect some concrete proof on your accusation:
          Mr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee and various other leaders have come out with rejoinders to my plea for a United Sovereign Bengal. In the rejoinders one senses a great deal of suspicion and distrust of Muslims and a great deal of hope that in one portion at least of Bengal the Hindus will be so overwhelmingly large in number that they will be able to dominate over Muslim minority.
This dream appears to have dazzled them into driving away all sane logic, all desire for compromise and co-operation with Muslims. They seem unable to realize how their Bengal will be a petty little show that will be accorded a backseat in the councils of their divided India.
            Mr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee has in particular unburdened himself in violent language and hyperbolic abuses. By constant reiteration of what he designates as to helpless position of the Hindus in Bengal, Mr. Mukharjee will like to convince the world at large and not the least himself that the Hindus in Bengal are really unfortunate if Bengal remains united.
            He even likens the position of the Hindus in Bengal to a hell, a hell, however, so privileged, so replete with wealth, power and influence that the Muslims consider it their aims and ambition and would deem themselves unfortunate if they could but dwell in a semblance of it.
            What is the use of hard words and vituperations? What is the use of vilifying me, attacking my bonafides, expatiating on my sins of omission and commission and holding me responsible for all the ills of Bengal? They cannot after the nature of things, but merely excite the passions of persons who have been taught to imbibe readily abuse and hatred of the Muslims and to believe the worst of every Muslims.
            He and those who think like him have absolutely overlooked the irrefutable fact that the future Independent Bengal which will not rely either on the 1935 Act or on any extraneous power but will have to rely on the willing co-operation of the people, particularly of a people so dominantly situated as the Hindus are the province cannot but have different politics. What have the alleged shortcomings of the present government or ministry, what have even my own position and individuality to do with what the people of Bengal can achieve if they remain united and co-operate with each other?
            It is not I who is offering them anything; it is for the people of Bengal to make and transmute their destiny by remaining together. It is a very short-sighted view to adopt the present, with its tremendous limitations, as a guide to the shape of things to come in Independent Bengal.
            Further, cannot Mr. Mukharjee visualize that there is a vast difference between the problem of Bengal and of India; that because Bengalees are one race and have one language and have many points in common and are capable of understanding each other, and working for the common good, it does not follow that persons living within the sub-continent of India also belonging to one race, speak the same language, have the same interests or even have the same history? In India, as well as in most of the provinces the Hindus are in a considerable majority, whereas in Bengal the majority margin of the Muslims is narrow and will be narrower still in greater Bengal.
            The Hindus of Bengal by virtue of their position and their status and their numbers hardly stand in need of any protection or safeguards, whereas in India the Muslims with their inferiority in numbers and resources do stand in need of such protection as is given by a partition. In Bengal the Hindus have their own language, their culture, their system of education and a free exercise of their religion. In India the language of the Muslims is being tampered with, their literature is being distorted, their education is being affected and in place after place laws have been framed which prohibit the full free exercise of their religion…………..Hence if there is a partition of India for the purpose of giving protection to the Muslims of India, it does not follow that there should be a partition Bengal for the purpose of giving protection to the Hindus of Bengal.
……...........And let us pause for a moment to consider what Bengal can be if it remains united. It will be a great country, indeed the richest and the most prosperous in India capable of giving to its people a high standard of living, where a great people will be able to rise to the fullest height of their stature, a land that will truly be plentiful. It will be rich in agriculture, rich in industry and commerce and in course of time it will be one of the most powerful and progressive states of the world. If Bengal remains united this will be no dream, no fantasy. Anyone who can see what her resources are and the present state of its development will agree that this must come to pass if we ourselves do not commit suicide.
            I have visualized all along, therefore, Bengal as an independent state and not part of any union of India. Once such states are formed, their future rests with them. I shall never forget how long it took for Government of India to realize the famine condition in Bengal in the year 1943, how in Bengal's dire need it was denied food grains by the neighboring province of Bihar, how since then every single province of India has closed its doors, and deprived Bengal of its normal necessities, how in the councils of India Bengal is relegated to an undignified corner while other provinces wield undue influence.
            No, if Bengal is to be great, it can only be so if it stands on its own legs and all combine to make it great. It must be master of its own resources and riches and its own destiny. It must cease to be exploited by others and shall not continue to suffer any longer for the benefit of the rest of India. So in the end the tussle will rage round Calcutta and its environment built up largely by people from other provinces who have no roots in the soil and who have come here to earn their livelihood, designated in another context as exploitation. Alas: if this is the main objective, as my figures would demonstrate, then, no claim for partition of Bengal can remain static and a cause for enmity and future strife would have been brought into being of which we can see no end. To those, of the Hindus who talk so lightly of the partition of Bengal, I make an appeal to drop this movement so fraught with unending mischief. ……
            Once more I find that some Hindu leaders of Bengal are succumbing to the pressure of the Hindus of India and are playing their game that the Hindu leaders, although they know fully well that a partition of Bengal means the doom of Hindus and Muslims alike, have subscribed to this partition under pressure from Hindu leaders of other parts of India who want to utilize Bengal as a pawn in their game and who do not care what happens to the people of Bengal.
            Indeed they know fully well that Bengal divided will mean Bengal a prey to the people of other parts of India, a Bengal waiting to be exploited for their benefit.
            After everything is said and done I am charged with having issued threats in the concluding paragraph of my statement where I have referred to Calcutta merely because I have pointed out the dangers. I have only been realistic. I have merely stressed what is well recognized that the cry for partition of Bengal was nothing but an attempt to get the rich prize of Calcutta and they deprive the Muslims of trade and commerce..…….
           
******
(Text of the speech of Mr. H.S Suhrawardy Chief Minister of Bengal on Calcutta riot calling upon people to maintain peace. The speech was broadcast by All India Radio on April 2, 1947)
 
Stop this lawlessness and this assault and let all of us take a vow that we shall work jointly to establish peace and harmony and to see that peace once established is not disturbed by whatever political cataclysm may overtake us. Stop this, I say, for the sake of your women and children, for the sake of peace and harmony and order, for the sake of the poor who suffer, people who have done no harm but who are forced by circumstances to go out and earn a living for themselves, their wives and children.
            To those Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta who are still continuing to assault people, throw bombs, fire guns, throw acids, stab passers-by etc. I want to make a fervent appeal to stop these activities. What possibly can be gained by such acts? Every right-thinking man, all your leaders, the young men, the students of our generation have all condemned such acts. …….
            …………Think once more what you gain by assaulting a Muslim here or a Hindu there. Some of you think you are taking revenge for similar acts elsewhere.
            I have called on you over and over again not to retaliate but to leave justice to the Government and you have seen for yourselves that the Government takes steps wherever an incident occurs. Why then is the necessity of this retaliation which can have no end, because one act of retaliation leads to another and the blood on your knife which you think belongs to the member of the other community turns out actually to be the blood of your own community, of some innocent co-religionist of yours elsewhere, who has done no wrong to anyone and on whom perhaps the welfare and life of others depend.
            Stop I say all this terror which is stalking our land. This evil must be laid in the dust. And to the members of the public, Hindus and Muslims, may I beg of them to contact each other more, to move about more as brothers, to take out joint peace parties and processions, and bring home to all that no one wants disorder and lawlessness and those that indulge into or those who incite others to commit these dastardly acts are not the heroes of your nation but rebels against God, man and society and their own community.
 
Regards,
 
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:19:00 -0700 (PDT)

 

Jinnah's proposal alone would not have created Pakistan. It was Suhrawady's call for direct action that led to the very first communal riot in Kolkata, creating a notion that Hindu and Muslim cannot live together, which motivated Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, etc. to give in to the demand for separate Muslim State.

 

Did it end communality in that part of the world? Not at all, in fact, it has increased communality. Therefore, it won't be too outrageous to say that Jinnah-Suhrawardy theory was wrong. I think - that was the point of Ghaffor Chowdhury's column.

 

When we say that leaders may make erroneous decisions based on the prevailing circumstances, we want to give them a pass for their wrong decisions. Why is that? Jinnah-Suhrawardy actions have adversely affected cores of innocent Hindu and Muslim lives. Shouldn't we at least point out their wrong decisions?

  

Jiten Roy

 


From: nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 1:17 PM

 
Hello Dear:
I could not resist myself to add something here regarding Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury's analysis of Jinnah time and time again. Mr. Chowdhury's make up stories cannot hold water and if anyone can read the readers' comments underneath the article of Mr. Chowdhury - especially Mr. Kader Siddiqy's bomb shell comment against Mr. Chowdhury then it will be enough NOT to take Mr. Chowdury seriously! Mr. Chowdury lies purposefully and does not bother to create (H)istory himself, which is deplorable! The perspective of 1947 and division of India were totally different at that time and though it is very easy to say many things today but at that time the ongoing politics proved CORRECT and RIGHT so that the main stream of politics took the RIGHT stand on the prevailing issues at that time. The Pakistan was created in 1947 had lost its way right after the pre-mature and mysterious sudden death of Jinnah - Jinnah did not create or WANTED to create the Pakistan, which we got in Post Jinnah time since 1948 and that's why the first Pakistani opposition party was formed under the name of Jinnah by Bengal's leader Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, the mentor of our national pride and father of the nation Bongobondhu, as Jinnah Muslim League to confront the perverted Muslim League politics at post Jinnah time! From Jinnah Muslim League to create Awami Muslim League and then to Awami League all of these political platforms were created by Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy as its prime initiator to get back the real Pakistan, which was envisioned at the time of its inception from 1940's Lahore Resolution to 1947s division of India time period!! Since Pakistani quotery interest/vested Interest could not be subdued due to many reasons eventually Suhrawardy's creation Awami League and disciple Sheikh Mujib led the nation to break the shackle of faulty Pakistan country to get our own!!
Sheikh Mujib himself was the instrumental in promoting and campaigning to Miss Fatema Jinnah as the COP (Combined Opposition Party) presidential candidate against Field Martial Ayub Khan and at that time the main reason to bring non-political element Miss Jinnah to politics just to prove that the current Pakistani leadership lost the way of Jinnah so that father of the nation Quide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's own sister Miss Fatema Jinnah would lead back to the nation towards the right direction of Jinnah's Pakistan - at least Bongobondhu (Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury did not think in that way at that time?) also believed in that and took side with Miss Jinnah just to bring back Pakistan to the path as Jinnah saw at the time of its inception!!!
As Mr. Chowdhury pointed out once more that one US Journalist told him that if we were in Pakistan today then we would be turned fundamentalist country as Pakistani army made the country nowadays - Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury is being GGAAN PAAPI and knows every equation well but twists the fact in his favor. The clear cut answer of this glorifying of Bangladesh chapter is that if we remained with Pakistan today then definitely Mujib and his Awami League would not let Pakistan to be the fundamentalist country as it is nowadays - Mujib - AL and his promoter daily Ittefaq and all other patriot political parties and leaderships' goal of the time was to bring back Pakistan to the right track as it was lost its way since Jinnah's death and neutralize the FAUZI (army) rule and their audacious interference in governance - that was total aim and objective of Pakistani politics of the time. So, if we did not get Independence at that time even then we would not be a part of perverted Pakistan as it is today - whole lot of movements in Pakistan in 60s to 1970 election period was aiming at creating the secular Pakistan as Jinnah dictated in his first speech as a Governor General of new State in 1947!
Pakistan movement never to be meant for creating a one State - obviously it was envisioned States - more than one PAKISTAN, which was a conception, in Muslim majority areas of the sub-continent. Bengal was totally out of Jinnah's Pakistan movement - so that Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim within Muslim League politics was engaged at the same time of Jinnah's Pakistan movement to create an Independent Undivided Sovereign Bengal! But for whose unwillingness and foul play we did not get the Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal just get that fact! Jinnah never ever asked us to be part of his Pakistan but it was Nehru-Patel's Congress and RSS leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukherjee type of Hindu leaders sealed off our fate in 1947 and put us to go for Jinnah's one Pakistan boat to create the most unscientific creation of a country in the world history and we had to get a truncated country but it was NOT due to Jinnah to have the sealed off fate of Bengal and truncated country rather it was otherwise and Mr. Chowdhury is so blind that he refuses to see that historical facts because he has some intention to put UDOR PINDI BUDHOR GAAREY as usually.
To get the fact of Division of India the curious reader should read, even Mr. Chowdhury too, the most informative and authentic book LOOK IN TO THE MIRROR by Mujib's lifelong friend and daily Ittefaq's News and Executive Editor Journalist Serajuddin Hossain!
 
Regards,    
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA
 
 
Please note: message attached

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see below
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:26:06 -0700 (PDT)



____________________________________________________________
2550% Penny Stock Gains?
Our last pick exploded 2550% - Join our newsletter for free picks!
PennyStocksExpert.com
 
--- On Wed, 9/14/11, nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com> wrote:




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow



I was talking about the creation of Pakistan as a whole, not partition of Bengal per se. The history of partition of Bengal is different from the Pakistan movement. Many Muslim leaders, including Suhrawardi, did not support partition of Bengal. They wanted an independent Bengal. Suhrawadi was the Chief Minister of the whole Bengal. Why would he support division of Bengal? It makes perfect sense. It was Jogen Mondal, who is responsible for the division of Bengal. Suhrawardi was a true Nationalist.

 

But, Suhrawadi whole heartedly supported Jinnah's Pakistan movement to create a Homeland for Muslims, and that's why he supported Jinnah's call for the direct action in Bengal; he called for a strike throughout Bengal. But, some people exploited the situation for their own interests, and created communal tension, which culminated into to an unprecedented communal riot and gave birth to communal hatred among the people of Bengal. That communal hatred spilled over to Noakhali and the massacre there was worse than Calcutta. Even Jogen Mondal had to submit his resignation from Jinnah's cabinet and flee to West Bengal to save his own life.

 

However, I learned many things about Suhrawadi from his speech. I want to thank you for that.

 

 
Jiten Roy

--- On Mon, 9/19/11, nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com> wrote:

From: nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 5:05 PM

 
Where did you get that Suhrawardy called for Direct Action program? It was League's call and namely Jinnah made that call as an All India Muslim League Leader, NOT Suhrawardy. At that time Suhrawardy was not holding any official post of All India Muslim League rather doing Bengal's politics certainly belonging to Muslim League but that was Bengal Muslim League, which did not make the call (rather can say had NOT that authority to call for program like that) of Direct Action and he was holding the position of Bengal's Chief Minister at that time, which was attributed at that time as Premier of Bengal. At Suhrawardy's Premiership the Great Calcutta killing, the Hindu Muslim communal Riot, occurred and a certain quarter of Hindu Press turned critical to Suhrawardy's administration and they personally condemned Suhrawardy to let loose the 'Muslim Killers on innocent Hindus" - other than those Hindu media there were none to condemn Suhrawardy for that Riot and killing rather all along Suhrawardy worked for Hindu-Muslim parity in Bengal and thus till the end he tried utmost along with Mr. Abul Hashim, the Secretary of Bengal Muslim League, and Mr. Sarat Bose and Dr. Kiron Shankar Roy as their allay in the other side namely the Hindus, to get Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal but at the beginning it was Hindu Mohashova Leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee and later Nehru-Patel's Congress took position against United Bengal and later the part of Bengal Muslim Leaguers who belonged to Eastern Bengal such as Bengal Muslim League President Moulana Akram Kha, Khwaja Najimuddin, Nurul Amin etc. jumped in for divided Bengal (as Congress and segment of Hindu Leadership were demanding) just to corner Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy politically in Bengal's politics because Suhrawardy belonged to West Bengal (Medinipur) and if Undivided United Bengal would attain by any chance then Calcutta would be the base of Bengal's politics and those Muslim Leaguers feared that that would give Suhrawardy and his Politics within Muslim League an extra advantage and edge so that those group of Bengal Muslim Leaguers for petty political interest initiated new stream within Bengal Muslim League politics to establish divided Bengal's mecca in Dacca instead of Calcutta just to size up Suhrawardy politically!
Those Dacca based Bengal Muslim Leaguers first met with Jinnah and expressed their willingness to join in Jinnah's ONE Pakistan by forsaking United Bengal and Calcutta and certainly Jinnah welcomed them to form an unscientific country keeping 1100 miles apart 2 lands! But at that same time Suhrawardy was fighting for Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal! It was first the Hindu Mohashova leader Dr. Mukharjee, then Nehru-Patel's Congress took stand against Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal and the betrayal within Bengal Muslim League to forsake this practical demand to get Undivided Independent Bengal eventually hurt and weakened Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim segment of Bengal Muslim League's movement to achieve greater Bengal as an Independent Country and at the end they had to concede for one Pakistan solution due to practical reasons but after getting complete guarantee and assurance from Jinnah that Bengal would be in the driving seat of the new country and all the provinces would enjoy absolute autonomy as Sher-e-Bangla's Lahore Resolution envisioned only then Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim group agreed to join in Jinnah's Pakistan !!
Suhrawardy pointed out repeatedly that the long time capital of All India was Calcutta and the infrastructure of Capital city Calcutta was established mostly by the toils, hard labors and raw materials of Eastern Bengal's poor peasants – so without Calcutta and/or part of Calcutta and/or its lion share the divided Eastern Bengal could not be sustained – so Eastern Bengal needed some form of settlement on that issue but surprisingly Muslim League leadership of Bengal did not show any interest for Bengal's wealth sharing matter and left that without even demanding that ever (as we did the same blunder in dealing with Pakistan too)! Suhrawardy was so frustrated with Bengal Muslim League leadership's strange attitude that's why he did not go to Pakistan for some time after the division of India rather stayed back in Calcutta and demanding to settle that wealth sharing do or die issue for divided Eastern Bengal. West Bengal and its politics certainly turned sensitive to Suhrawardy's that wealth sharing demand for Calcutta city and its infrastructure as they were antagonist to his Undivided Independent Bengal movement. So, Suhrawardy was nothing but the nemesis to divided India and Bengal's politics and press. As I mentioned that a segment of Indian Press was very much critical to Suhrawardy due to his bonafide role and fight for United Bengal or getting share of Calcutta for divided Bengal and thus they portrayed him NOT only as the villain rather the killer and butcher of Bengal politics but other than those Hindu Press there was no clue what evil Suhrawardy did in his life time!
Regarding Great Calcutta Killing and Suhrawardy's role in it I can refresh my memory thus: at the time of riot as a Premier Suhrawardy personally came out to the street along with his foot soldiers the students of Islamia College (young Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was Mr. Suhrawardy's right hand man in student front at that time and definitely afterwards too) and roamed around the city to protect Hindu-Muslim neighborhoods through his physical presence along with his followers at the moment of grave crisis and that caused the overzealous segment of Hindu press to portray Suhrawardy as personally involved in killing of Hindus at the Rioting time, which notion is nothing but silly! It is needless to say that the famous movie 'Gandhi' was story based – certainly not History based and the portrayal of Suhrawardy and many other events and characters there were NOT representing real history all the time! That is movie NOT history!! Our many friends here and there buy those notions and portrayal of Suhrawardy by segment of Hindu press very easily without corroborating that from any other credible sources and that is pathetic!!!
In Pakistan politics once Deputy Speaker Mr. Shahed Ali was murdered in the Assembly while Presiding the Session and in the midst of melee someone threw a chair which hit the Deputy Speaker and eventually at the Hospital Mr. Ali was succumbed to death and the total blame was given by the government party Muslim League to opposition member young leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman but all the independent inquiry, press photos, witnesses all indicated that the chair was thrown from the treasury bench (from the side of ruling government party –the Muslim League) but blame went to innocent one just to make some political points and still some humbugs believe Mujib was the killer of Deputy Speaker Shahed Ali but which is interesting that staying in power for 24 years that Muslim League only accused and kept that accusation alive against Mujib but never ever tried to bring him to justice – not even file a case against Mujib for that murderous act! In division of India politics Suhrawardy was turned villain – murderer due to political reasons – purposes – other than certain quarter of Indian Press no contemporary leader and/or administrative officer and/or British Raj people had accused Suhrawardy for the same!
At the end I am just putting Mr. Suhrawardy's own words to justify his acts and deeds in Bengal and All Indian politics for better understanding of a true Statesman: but certainly you have the liberty to continue your debate on this matter but we expect some concrete proof on your accusation:
          Mr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee and various other leaders have come out with rejoinders to my plea for a United Sovereign Bengal. In the rejoinders one senses a great deal of suspicion and distrust of Muslims and a great deal of hope that in one portion at least of Bengal the Hindus will be so overwhelmingly large in number that they will be able to dominate over Muslim minority.
This dream appears to have dazzled them into driving away all sane logic, all desire for compromise and co-operation with Muslims. They seem unable to realize how their Bengal will be a petty little show that will be accorded a backseat in the councils of their divided India.
            Mr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee has in particular unburdened himself in violent language and hyperbolic abuses. By constant reiteration of what he designates as to helpless position of the Hindus in Bengal, Mr. Mukharjee will like to convince the world at large and not the least himself that the Hindus in Bengal are really unfortunate if Bengal remains united.
            He even likens the position of the Hindus in Bengal to a hell, a hell, however, so privileged, so replete with wealth, power and influence that the Muslims consider it their aims and ambition and would deem themselves unfortunate if they could but dwell in a semblance of it.
            What is the use of hard words and vituperations? What is the use of vilifying me, attacking my bonafides, expatiating on my sins of omission and commission and holding me responsible for all the ills of Bengal? They cannot after the nature of things, but merely excite the passions of persons who have been taught to imbibe readily abuse and hatred of the Muslims and to believe the worst of every Muslims.
            He and those who think like him have absolutely overlooked the irrefutable fact that the future Independent Bengal which will not rely either on the 1935 Act or on any extraneous power but will have to rely on the willing co-operation of the people, particularly of a people so dominantly situated as the Hindus are the province cannot but have different politics. What have the alleged shortcomings of the present government or ministry, what have even my own position and individuality to do with what the people of Bengal can achieve if they remain united and co-operate with each other?
            It is not I who is offering them anything; it is for the people of Bengal to make and transmute their destiny by remaining together. It is a very short-sighted view to adopt the present, with its tremendous limitations, as a guide to the shape of things to come in Independent Bengal.
            Further, cannot Mr. Mukharjee visualize that there is a vast difference between the problem of Bengal and of India; that because Bengalees are one race and have one language and have many points in common and are capable of understanding each other, and working for the common good, it does not follow that persons living within the sub-continent of India also belonging to one race, speak the same language, have the same interests or even have the same history? In India, as well as in most of the provinces the Hindus are in a considerable majority, whereas in Bengal the majority margin of the Muslims is narrow and will be narrower still in greater Bengal.
            The Hindus of Bengal by virtue of their position and their status and their numbers hardly stand in need of any protection or safeguards, whereas in India the Muslims with their inferiority in numbers and resources do stand in need of such protection as is given by a partition. In Bengal the Hindus have their own language, their culture, their system of education and a free exercise of their religion. In India the language of the Muslims is being tampered with, their literature is being distorted, their education is being affected and in place after place laws have been framed which prohibit the full free exercise of their religion…………..Hence if there is a partition of India for the purpose of giving protection to the Muslims of India, it does not follow that there should be a partition Bengal for the purpose of giving protection to the Hindus of Bengal.
……...........And let us pause for a moment to consider what Bengal can be if it remains united. It will be a great country, indeed the richest and the most prosperous in India capable of giving to its people a high standard of living, where a great people will be able to rise to the fullest height of their stature, a land that will truly be plentiful. It will be rich in agriculture, rich in industry and commerce and in course of time it will be one of the most powerful and progressive states of the world. If Bengal remains united this will be no dream, no fantasy. Anyone who can see what her resources are and the present state of its development will agree that this must come to pass if we ourselves do not commit suicide.
            I have visualized all along, therefore, Bengal as an independent state and not part of any union of India. Once such states are formed, their future rests with them. I shall never forget how long it took for Government of India to realize the famine condition in Bengal in the year 1943, how in Bengal's dire need it was denied food grains by the neighboring province of Bihar, how since then every single province of India has closed its doors, and deprived Bengal of its normal necessities, how in the councils of India Bengal is relegated to an undignified corner while other provinces wield undue influence.
            No, if Bengal is to be great, it can only be so if it stands on its own legs and all combine to make it great. It must be master of its own resources and riches and its own destiny. It must cease to be exploited by others and shall not continue to suffer any longer for the benefit of the rest of India. So in the end the tussle will rage round Calcutta and its environment built up largely by people from other provinces who have no roots in the soil and who have come here to earn their livelihood, designated in another context as exploitation. Alas: if this is the main objective, as my figures would demonstrate, then, no claim for partition of Bengal can remain static and a cause for enmity and future strife would have been brought into being of which we can see no end. To those, of the Hindus who talk so lightly of the partition of Bengal, I make an appeal to drop this movement so fraught with unending mischief. ……
            Once more I find that some Hindu leaders of Bengal are succumbing to the pressure of the Hindus of India and are playing their game that the Hindu leaders, although they know fully well that a partition of Bengal means the doom of Hindus and Muslims alike, have subscribed to this partition under pressure from Hindu leaders of other parts of India who want to utilize Bengal as a pawn in their game and who do not care what happens to the people of Bengal.
            Indeed they know fully well that Bengal divided will mean Bengal a prey to the people of other parts of India, a Bengal waiting to be exploited for their benefit.
            After everything is said and done I am charged with having issued threats in the concluding paragraph of my statement where I have referred to Calcutta merely because I have pointed out the dangers. I have only been realistic. I have merely stressed what is well recognized that the cry for partition of Bengal was nothing but an attempt to get the rich prize of Calcutta and they deprive the Muslims of trade and commerce..…….
           
******
(Text of the speech of Mr. H.S Suhrawardy Chief Minister of Bengal on Calcutta riot calling upon people to maintain peace. The speech was broadcast by All India Radio on April 2, 1947)
 
Stop this lawlessness and this assault and let all of us take a vow that we shall work jointly to establish peace and harmony and to see that peace once established is not disturbed by whatever political cataclysm may overtake us. Stop this, I say, for the sake of your women and children, for the sake of peace and harmony and order, for the sake of the poor who suffer, people who have done no harm but who are forced by circumstances to go out and earn a living for themselves, their wives and children.
            To those Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta who are still continuing to assault people, throw bombs, fire guns, throw acids, stab passers-by etc. I want to make a fervent appeal to stop these activities. What possibly can be gained by such acts? Every right-thinking man, all your leaders, the young men, the students of our generation have all condemned such acts. …….
            …………Think once more what you gain by assaulting a Muslim here or a Hindu there. Some of you think you are taking revenge for similar acts elsewhere.
            I have called on you over and over again not to retaliate but to leave justice to the Government and you have seen for yourselves that the Government takes steps wherever an incident occurs. Why then is the necessity of this retaliation which can have no end, because one act of retaliation leads to another and the blood on your knife which you think belongs to the member of the other community turns out actually to be the blood of your own community, of some innocent co-religionist of yours elsewhere, who has done no wrong to anyone and on whom perhaps the welfare and life of others depend.
            Stop I say all this terror which is stalking our land. This evil must be laid in the dust. And to the members of the public, Hindus and Muslims, may I beg of them to contact each other more, to move about more as brothers, to take out joint peace parties and processions, and bring home to all that no one wants disorder and lawlessness and those that indulge into or those who incite others to commit these dastardly acts are not the heroes of your nation but rebels against God, man and society and their own community.
 
Regards,
 
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:19:00 -0700 (PDT)

 

Jinnah's proposal alone would not have created Pakistan. It was Suhrawady's call for direct action that led to the very first communal riot in Kolkata, creating a notion that Hindu and Muslim cannot live together, which motivated Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, etc. to give in to the demand for separate Muslim State.

 

Did it end communality in that part of the world? Not at all, in fact, it has increased communality. Therefore, it won't be too outrageous to say that Jinnah-Suhrawardy theory was wrong. I think - that was the point of Ghaffor Chowdhury's column.

 

When we say that leaders may make erroneous decisions based on the prevailing circumstances, we want to give them a pass for their wrong decisions. Why is that? Jinnah-Suhrawardy actions have adversely affected cores of innocent Hindu and Muslim lives. Shouldn't we at least point out their wrong decisions?

  

Jiten Roy

 


From: nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 1:17 PM

 
Hello Dear:
I could not resist myself to add something here regarding Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury's analysis of Jinnah time and time again. Mr. Chowdhury's make up stories cannot hold water and if anyone can read the readers' comments underneath the article of Mr. Chowdhury - especially Mr. Kader Siddiqy's bomb shell comment against Mr. Chowdhury then it will be enough NOT to take Mr. Chowdury seriously! Mr. Chowdury lies purposefully and does not bother to create (H)istory himself, which is deplorable! The perspective of 1947 and division of India were totally different at that time and though it is very easy to say many things today but at that time the ongoing politics proved CORRECT and RIGHT so that the main stream of politics took the RIGHT stand on the prevailing issues at that time. The Pakistan was created in 1947 had lost its way right after the pre-mature and mysterious sudden death of Jinnah - Jinnah did not create or WANTED to create the Pakistan, which we got in Post Jinnah time since 1948 and that's why the first Pakistani opposition party was formed under the name of Jinnah by Bengal's leader Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, the mentor of our national pride and father of the nation Bongobondhu, as Jinnah Muslim League to confront the perverted Muslim League politics at post Jinnah time! From Jinnah Muslim League to create Awami Muslim League and then to Awami League all of these political platforms were created by Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy as its prime initiator to get back the real Pakistan, which was envisioned at the time of its inception from 1940's Lahore Resolution to 1947s division of India time period!! Since Pakistani quotery interest/vested Interest could not be subdued due to many reasons eventually Suhrawardy's creation Awami League and disciple Sheikh Mujib led the nation to break the shackle of faulty Pakistan country to get our own!!
Sheikh Mujib himself was the instrumental in promoting and campaigning to Miss Fatema Jinnah as the COP (Combined Opposition Party) presidential candidate against Field Martial Ayub Khan and at that time the main reason to bring non-political element Miss Jinnah to politics just to prove that the current Pakistani leadership lost the way of Jinnah so that father of the nation Quide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's own sister Miss Fatema Jinnah would lead back to the nation towards the right direction of Jinnah's Pakistan - at least Bongobondhu (Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury did not think in that way at that time?) also believed in that and took side with Miss Jinnah just to bring back Pakistan to the path as Jinnah saw at the time of its inception!!!
As Mr. Chowdhury pointed out once more that one US Journalist told him that if we were in Pakistan today then we would be turned fundamentalist country as Pakistani army made the country nowadays - Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury is being GGAAN PAAPI and knows every equation well but twists the fact in his favor. The clear cut answer of this glorifying of Bangladesh chapter is that if we remained with Pakistan today then definitely Mujib and his Awami League would not let Pakistan to be the fundamentalist country as it is nowadays - Mujib - AL and his promoter daily Ittefaq and all other patriot political parties and leaderships' goal of the time was to bring back Pakistan to the right track as it was lost its way since Jinnah's death and neutralize the FAUZI (army) rule and their audacious interference in governance - that was total aim and objective of Pakistani politics of the time. So, if we did not get Independence at that time even then we would not be a part of perverted Pakistan as it is today - whole lot of movements in Pakistan in 60s to 1970 election period was aiming at creating the secular Pakistan as Jinnah dictated in his first speech as a Governor General of new State in 1947!
Pakistan movement never to be meant for creating a one State - obviously it was envisioned States - more than one PAKISTAN, which was a conception, in Muslim majority areas of the sub-continent. Bengal was totally out of Jinnah's Pakistan movement - so that Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim within Muslim League politics was engaged at the same time of Jinnah's Pakistan movement to create an Independent Undivided Sovereign Bengal! But for whose unwillingness and foul play we did not get the Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal just get that fact! Jinnah never ever asked us to be part of his Pakistan but it was Nehru-Patel's Congress and RSS leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukherjee type of Hindu leaders sealed off our fate in 1947 and put us to go for Jinnah's one Pakistan boat to create the most unscientific creation of a country in the world history and we had to get a truncated country but it was NOT due to Jinnah to have the sealed off fate of Bengal and truncated country rather it was otherwise and Mr. Chowdhury is so blind that he refuses to see that historical facts because he has some intention to put UDOR PINDI BUDHOR GAAREY as usually.
To get the fact of Division of India the curious reader should read, even Mr. Chowdhury too, the most informative and authentic book LOOK IN TO THE MIRROR by Mujib's lifelong friend and daily Ittefaq's News and Executive Editor Journalist Serajuddin Hossain!
 
Regards,    
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA
 
 
Please note: message attached

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see below
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:26:06 -0700 (PDT)



____________________________________________________________
2550% Penny Stock Gains?
Our last pick exploded 2550% - Join our newsletter for free picks!
PennyStocksExpert.com
 
--- On Wed, 9/14/11, nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com> wrote:


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow



Where did you get that Suhrawardy called for Direct Action program? It was League's call and namely Jinnah made that call as an All India Muslim League Leader, NOT Suhrawardy. At that time Suhrawardy was not holding any official post of All India Muslim League rather doing Bengal's politics certainly belonging to Muslim League but that was Bengal Muslim League, which did not make the call (rather can say had NOT that authority to call for program like that) of Direct Action and he was holding the position of Bengal's Chief Minister at that time, which was attributed at that time as Premier of Bengal. At Suhrawardy's Premiership the Great Calcutta killing, the Hindu Muslim communal Riot, occurred and a certain quarter of Hindu Press turned critical to Suhrawardy's administration and they personally condemned Suhrawardy to let loose the 'Muslim Killers on innocent Hindus" - other than those Hindu media there were none to condemn Suhrawardy for that Riot and killing rather all along Suhrawardy worked for Hindu-Muslim parity in Bengal and thus till the end he tried utmost along with Mr. Abul Hashim, the Secretary of Bengal Muslim League, and Mr. Sarat Bose and Dr. Kiron Shankar Roy as their allay in the other side namely the Hindus, to get Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal but at the beginning it was Hindu Mohashova Leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee and later Nehru-Patel's Congress took position against United Bengal and later the part of Bengal Muslim Leaguers who belonged to Eastern Bengal such as Bengal Muslim League President Moulana Akram Kha, Khwaja Najimuddin, Nurul Amin etc. jumped in for divided Bengal (as Congress and segment of Hindu Leadership were demanding) just to corner Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy politically in Bengal's politics because Suhrawardy belonged to West Bengal (Medinipur) and if Undivided United Bengal would attain by any chance then Calcutta would be the base of Bengal's politics and those Muslim Leaguers feared that that would give Suhrawardy and his Politics within Muslim League an extra advantage and edge so that those group of Bengal Muslim Leaguers for petty political interest initiated new stream within Bengal Muslim League politics to establish divided Bengal's mecca in Dacca instead of Calcutta just to size up Suhrawardy politically!
Those Dacca based Bengal Muslim Leaguers first met with Jinnah and expressed their willingness to join in Jinnah’s ONE Pakistan by forsaking United Bengal and Calcutta and certainly Jinnah welcomed them to form an unscientific country keeping 1100 miles apart 2 lands! But at that same time Suhrawardy was fighting for Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal! It was first the Hindu Mohashova leader Dr. Mukharjee, then Nehru-Patel’s Congress took stand against Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal and the betrayal within Bengal Muslim League to forsake this practical demand to get Undivided Independent Bengal eventually hurt and weakened Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim segment of Bengal Muslim League’s movement to achieve greater Bengal as an Independent Country and at the end they had to concede for one Pakistan solution due to practical reasons but after getting complete guarantee and assurance from Jinnah that Bengal would be in the driving seat of the new country and all the provinces would enjoy absolute autonomy as Sher-e-Bangla’s Lahore Resolution envisioned only then Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim group agreed to join in Jinnah’s Pakistan !!
Suhrawardy pointed out repeatedly that the long time capital of All India was Calcutta and the infrastructure of Capital city Calcutta was established mostly by the toils, hard labors and raw materials of Eastern Bengal’s poor peasants – so without Calcutta and/or part of Calcutta and/or its lion share the divided Eastern Bengal could not be sustained – so Eastern Bengal needed some form of settlement on that issue but surprisingly Muslim League leadership of Bengal did not show any interest for Bengal’s wealth sharing matter and left that without even demanding that ever (as we did the same blunder in dealing with Pakistan too)! Suhrawardy was so frustrated with Bengal Muslim League leadership’s strange attitude that’s why he did not go to Pakistan for some time after the division of India rather stayed back in Calcutta and demanding to settle that wealth sharing do or die issue for divided Eastern Bengal. West Bengal and its politics certainly turned sensitive to Suhrawardy’s that wealth sharing demand for Calcutta city and its infrastructure as they were antagonist to his Undivided Independent Bengal movement. So, Suhrawardy was nothing but the nemesis to divided India and Bengal’s politics and press. As I mentioned that a segment of Indian Press was very much critical to Suhrawardy due to his bonafide role and fight for United Bengal or getting share of Calcutta for divided Bengal and thus they portrayed him NOT only as the villain rather the killer and butcher of Bengal politics but other than those Hindu Press there was no clue what evil Suhrawardy did in his life time!
Regarding Great Calcutta Killing and Suhrawardy’s role in it I can refresh my memory thus: at the time of riot as a Premier Suhrawardy personally came out to the street along with his foot soldiers the students of Islamia College (young Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was Mr. Suhrawardy’s right hand man in student front at that time and definitely afterwards too) and roamed around the city to protect Hindu-Muslim neighborhoods through his physical presence along with his followers at the moment of grave crisis and that caused the overzealous segment of Hindu press to portray Suhrawardy as personally involved in killing of Hindus at the Rioting time, which notion is nothing but silly! It is needless to say that the famous movie ‘Gandhi’ was story based – certainly not History based and the portrayal of Suhrawardy and many other events and characters there were NOT representing real history all the time! That is movie NOT history!! Our many friends here and there buy those notions and portrayal of Suhrawardy by segment of Hindu press very easily without corroborating that from any other credible sources and that is pathetic!!!
In Pakistan politics once Deputy Speaker Mr. Shahed Ali was murdered in the Assembly while Presiding the Session and in the midst of melee someone threw a chair which hit the Deputy Speaker and eventually at the Hospital Mr. Ali was succumbed to death and the total blame was given by the government party Muslim League to opposition member young leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman but all the independent inquiry, press photos, witnesses all indicated that the chair was thrown from the treasury bench (from the side of ruling government party –the Muslim League) but blame went to innocent one just to make some political points and still some humbugs believe Mujib was the killer of Deputy Speaker Shahed Ali but which is interesting that staying in power for 24 years that Muslim League only accused and kept that accusation alive against Mujib but never ever tried to bring him to justice – not even file a case against Mujib for that murderous act! In division of India politics Suhrawardy was turned villain – murderer due to political reasons – purposes – other than certain quarter of Indian Press no contemporary leader and/or administrative officer and/or British Raj people had accused Suhrawardy for the same!
At the end I am just putting Mr. Suhrawardy’s own words to justify his acts and deeds in Bengal and All Indian politics for better understanding of a true Statesman: but certainly you have the liberty to continue your debate on this matter but we expect some concrete proof on your accusation:
          Mr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee and various other leaders have come out with rejoinders to my plea for a United Sovereign Bengal. In the rejoinders one senses a great deal of suspicion and distrust of Muslims and a great deal of hope that in one portion at least of Bengal the Hindus will be so overwhelmingly large in number that they will be able to dominate over Muslim minority.
This dream appears to have dazzled them into driving away all sane logic, all desire for compromise and co-operation with Muslims. They seem unable to realize how their Bengal will be a petty little show that will be accorded a backseat in the councils of their divided India.
            Mr. Shyama Prashad Mukharjee has in particular unburdened himself in violent language and hyperbolic abuses. By constant reiteration of what he designates as to helpless position of the Hindus in Bengal, Mr. Mukharjee will like to convince the world at large and not the least himself that the Hindus in Bengal are really unfortunate if Bengal remains united.
            He even likens the position of the Hindus in Bengal to a hell, a hell, however, so privileged, so replete with wealth, power and influence that the Muslims consider it their aims and ambition and would deem themselves unfortunate if they could but dwell in a semblance of it.
            What is the use of hard words and vituperations? What is the use of vilifying me, attacking my bonafides, expatiating on my sins of omission and commission and holding me responsible for all the ills of Bengal? They cannot after the nature of things, but merely excite the passions of persons who have been taught to imbibe readily abuse and hatred of the Muslims and to believe the worst of every Muslims.
            He and those who think like him have absolutely overlooked the irrefutable fact that the future Independent Bengal which will not rely either on the 1935 Act or on any extraneous power but will have to rely on the willing co-operation of the people, particularly of a people so dominantly situated as the Hindus are the province cannot but have different politics. What have the alleged shortcomings of the present government or ministry, what have even my own position and individuality to do with what the people of Bengal can achieve if they remain united and co-operate with each other?
            It is not I who is offering them anything; it is for the people of Bengal to make and transmute their destiny by remaining together. It is a very short-sighted view to adopt the present, with its tremendous limitations, as a guide to the shape of things to come in Independent Bengal.
            Further, cannot Mr. Mukharjee visualize that there is a vast difference between the problem of Bengal and of India; that because Bengalees are one race and have one language and have many points in common and are capable of understanding each other, and working for the common good, it does not follow that persons living within the sub-continent of India also belonging to one race, speak the same language, have the same interests or even have the same history? In India, as well as in most of the provinces the Hindus are in a considerable majority, whereas in Bengal the majority margin of the Muslims is narrow and will be narrower still in greater Bengal.
            The Hindus of Bengal by virtue of their position and their status and their numbers hardly stand in need of any protection or safeguards, whereas in India the Muslims with their inferiority in numbers and resources do stand in need of such protection as is given by a partition. In Bengal the Hindus have their own language, their culture, their system of education and a free exercise of their religion. In India the language of the Muslims is being tampered with, their literature is being distorted, their education is being affected and in place after place laws have been framed which prohibit the full free exercise of their religion…………..Hence if there is a partition of India for the purpose of giving protection to the Muslims of India, it does not follow that there should be a partition Bengal for the purpose of giving protection to the Hindus of Bengal.
……...........And let us pause for a moment to consider what Bengal can be if it remains united. It will be a great country, indeed the richest and the most prosperous in India capable of giving to its people a high standard of living, where a great people will be able to rise to the fullest height of their stature, a land that will truly be plentiful. It will be rich in agriculture, rich in industry and commerce and in course of time it will be one of the most powerful and progressive states of the world. If Bengal remains united this will be no dream, no fantasy. Anyone who can see what her resources are and the present state of its development will agree that this must come to pass if we ourselves do not commit suicide.
            I have visualized all along, therefore, Bengal as an independent state and not part of any union of India. Once such states are formed, their future rests with them. I shall never forget how long it took for Government of India to realize the famine condition in Bengal in the year 1943, how in Bengal’s dire need it was denied food grains by the neighboring province of Bihar, how since then every single province of India has closed its doors, and deprived Bengal of its normal necessities, how in the councils of India Bengal is relegated to an undignified corner while other provinces wield undue influence.
            No, if Bengal is to be great, it can only be so if it stands on its own legs and all combine to make it great. It must be master of its own resources and riches and its own destiny. It must cease to be exploited by others and shall not continue to suffer any longer for the benefit of the rest of India. So in the end the tussle will rage round Calcutta and its environment built up largely by people from other provinces who have no roots in the soil and who have come here to earn their livelihood, designated in another context as exploitation. Alas: if this is the main objective, as my figures would demonstrate, then, no claim for partition of Bengal can remain static and a cause for enmity and future strife would have been brought into being of which we can see no end. To those, of the Hindus who talk so lightly of the partition of Bengal, I make an appeal to drop this movement so fraught with unending mischief. ……
            Once more I find that some Hindu leaders of Bengal are succumbing to the pressure of the Hindus of India and are playing their game that the Hindu leaders, although they know fully well that a partition of Bengal means the doom of Hindus and Muslims alike, have subscribed to this partition under pressure from Hindu leaders of other parts of India who want to utilize Bengal as a pawn in their game and who do not care what happens to the people of Bengal.
            Indeed they know fully well that Bengal divided will mean Bengal a prey to the people of other parts of India, a Bengal waiting to be exploited for their benefit.
            After everything is said and done I am charged with having issued threats in the concluding paragraph of my statement where I have referred to Calcutta merely because I have pointed out the dangers. I have only been realistic. I have merely stressed what is well recognized that the cry for partition of Bengal was nothing but an attempt to get the rich prize of Calcutta and they deprive the Muslims of trade and commerce..…….
           
******
(Text of the speech of Mr. H.S Suhrawardy Chief Minister of Bengal on Calcutta riot calling upon people to maintain peace. The speech was broadcast by All India Radio on April 2, 1947)
 
Stop this lawlessness and this assault and let all of us take a vow that we shall work jointly to establish peace and harmony and to see that peace once established is not disturbed by whatever political cataclysm may overtake us. Stop this, I say, for the sake of your women and children, for the sake of peace and harmony and order, for the sake of the poor who suffer, people who have done no harm but who are forced by circumstances to go out and earn a living for themselves, their wives and children.
            To those Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta who are still continuing to assault people, throw bombs, fire guns, throw acids, stab passers-by etc. I want to make a fervent appeal to stop these activities. What possibly can be gained by such acts? Every right-thinking man, all your leaders, the young men, the students of our generation have all condemned such acts. …….
            …………Think once more what you gain by assaulting a Muslim here or a Hindu there. Some of you think you are taking revenge for similar acts elsewhere.
            I have called on you over and over again not to retaliate but to leave justice to the Government and you have seen for yourselves that the Government takes steps wherever an incident occurs. Why then is the necessity of this retaliation which can have no end, because one act of retaliation leads to another and the blood on your knife which you think belongs to the member of the other community turns out actually to be the blood of your own community, of some innocent co-religionist of yours elsewhere, who has done no wrong to anyone and on whom perhaps the welfare and life of others depend.
            Stop I say all this terror which is stalking our land. This evil must be laid in the dust. And to the members of the public, Hindus and Muslims, may I beg of them to contact each other more, to move about more as brothers, to take out joint peace parties and processions, and bring home to all that no one wants disorder and lawlessness and those that indulge into or those who incite others to commit these dastardly acts are not the heroes of your nation but rebels against God, man and society and their own community.
 
Regards,
 
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:19:00 -0700 (PDT)

 


Jinnah’s proposal alone would not have created Pakistan. It was Suhrawady’s call for direct action that led to the very first communal riot in Kolkata, creating a notion that Hindu and Muslim cannot live together, which motivated Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, etc. to give in to the demand for separate Muslim State.

 

Did it end communality in that part of the world? Not at all, in fact, it has increased communality. Therefore, it won’t be too outrageous to say that Jinnah-Suhrawardy theory was wrong. I think - that was the point of Ghaffor Chowdhury's column.

 

When we say that leaders may make erroneous decisions based on the prevailing circumstances, we want to give them a pass for their wrong decisions. Why is that? Jinnah-Suhrawardy actions have adversely affected cores of innocent Hindu and Muslim lives. Shouldn’t we at least point out their wrong decisions?

  

Jiten Roy

 


From: nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 1:17 PM

 
Hello Dear:
I could not resist myself to add something here regarding Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury's analysis of Jinnah time and time again. Mr. Chowdhury's make up stories cannot hold water and if anyone can read the readers’ comments underneath the article of Mr. Chowdhury - especially Mr. Kader Siddiqy’s bomb shell comment against Mr. Chowdhury then it will be enough NOT to take Mr. Chowdury seriously! Mr. Chowdury lies purposefully and does not bother to create (H)istory himself, which is deplorable! The perspective of 1947 and division of India were totally different at that time and though it is very easy to say many things today but at that time the ongoing politics proved CORRECT and RIGHT so that the main stream of politics took the RIGHT stand on the prevailing issues at that time. The Pakistan was created in 1947 had lost its way right after the pre-mature and mysterious sudden death of Jinnah - Jinnah did not create or WANTED to create the Pakistan, which we got in Post Jinnah time since 1948 and that's why the first Pakistani opposition party was formed under the name of Jinnah by Bengal's leader Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, the mentor of our national pride and father of the nation Bongobondhu, as Jinnah Muslim League to confront the perverted Muslim League politics at post Jinnah time! From Jinnah Muslim League to create Awami Muslim League and then to Awami League all of these political platforms were created by Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy as its prime initiator to get back the real Pakistan, which was envisioned at the time of its inception from 1940’s Lahore Resolution to 1947s division of India time period!! Since Pakistani quotery interest/vested Interest could not be subdued due to many reasons eventually Suhrawardy’s creation Awami League and disciple Sheikh Mujib led the nation to break the shackle of faulty Pakistan country to get our own!!
Sheikh Mujib himself was the instrumental in promoting and campaigning to Miss Fatema Jinnah as the COP (Combined Opposition Party) presidential candidate against Field Martial Ayub Khan and at that time the main reason to bring non-political element Miss Jinnah to politics just to prove that the current Pakistani leadership lost the way of Jinnah so that father of the nation Quide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's own sister Miss Fatema Jinnah would lead back to the nation towards the right direction of Jinnah's Pakistan - at least Bongobondhu (Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury did not think in that way at that time?) also believed in that and took side with Miss Jinnah just to bring back Pakistan to the path as Jinnah saw at the time of its inception!!!
As Mr. Chowdhury pointed out once more that one US Journalist told him that if we were in Pakistan today then we would be turned fundamentalist country as Pakistani army made the country nowadays - Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury is being GGAAN PAAPI and knows every equation well but twists the fact in his favor. The clear cut answer of this glorifying of Bangladesh chapter is that if we remained with Pakistan today then definitely Mujib and his Awami League would not let Pakistan to be the fundamentalist country as it is nowadays - Mujib - AL and his promoter daily Ittefaq and all other patriot political parties and leaderships’ goal of the time was to bring back Pakistan to the right track as it was lost its way since Jinnah's death and neutralize the FAUZI (army) rule and their audacious interference in governance - that was total aim and objective of Pakistani politics of the time. So, if we did not get Independence at that time even then we would not be a part of perverted Pakistan as it is today - whole lot of movements in Pakistan in 60s to 1970 election period was aiming at creating the secular Pakistan as Jinnah dictated in his first speech as a Governor General of new State in 1947!
Pakistan movement never to be meant for creating a one State - obviously it was envisioned States - more than one PAKISTAN, which was a conception, in Muslim majority areas of the sub-continent. Bengal was totally out of Jinnah's Pakistan movement - so that Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim within Muslim League politics was engaged at the same time of Jinnah's Pakistan movement to create an Independent Undivided Sovereign Bengal! But for whose unwillingness and foul play we did not get the Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal just get that fact! Jinnah never ever asked us to be part of his Pakistan but it was Nehru-Patel's Congress and RSS leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukherjee type of Hindu leaders sealed off our fate in 1947 and put us to go for Jinnah's one Pakistan boat to create the most unscientific creation of a country in the world history and we had to get a truncated country but it was NOT due to Jinnah to have the sealed off fate of Bengal and truncated country rather it was otherwise and Mr. Chowdhury is so blind that he refuses to see that historical facts because he has some intention to put UDOR PINDI BUDHOR GAAREY as usually.
To get the fact of Division of India the curious reader should read, even Mr. Chowdhury too, the most informative and authentic book LOOK IN TO THE MIRROR by Mujib's lifelong friend and daily Ittefaq's News and Executive Editor Journalist Serajuddin Hossain!
 
Regards,    
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA
 
 
Please note: message attached

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see below
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:26:06 -0700 (PDT)



____________________________________________________________
2550% Penny Stock Gains?
Our last pick exploded 2550% - Join our newsletter for free picks!
PennyStocksExpert.com
 
--- On Wed, 9/14/11, nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com> wrote:


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___