What's new

The political victimisation of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy

Thank you for your piece. It was really interesting.

Interest takes various shapes, sizes, dimensions, as your reactions and responses show.

Admire the Sikhs, man. I understand the hate some have for them and why. They are not among the 'docile'.

Yes, they always wore their hearts on their sleeves. They were far more prominent in Calcutta than they are today. Today they are a thin, diluted anaemic sliver of people; back in the day, they had tremendous respect and affection in society. It was known that sending your womenfolk away in a taxi was quite safe if the driver was a Sardar. Gyan Singh Sohanpal even became a minister, unfortunately for the wrong party.

So your father was one of the most powerful British police officers in Calcutta. So you were one of the 'elite' even back then.

A Deputy Commissioner of Police is not one of the most powerful. And I was not born until years later.

We know Suhrawardy's silent support for the Hindu massacres. His party was served well. He remained silent in the future as well - in the future massacres.

If you followed the story at all, and if you followed the copious amounts of researched and published material, you would not have written such a thing. The problem is that having made up your mind at an early age that Muslims are evil, you force all the facts that you encounter into that framework.

We now know that you father had exonerated him of all crimes and pinned the blame on an invisible, unknown (perhaps imaginary?) foreign hand.

As it happens, my father had nothing to do with exonerating him. Nor did he pin the blame on anyone. Imaginary or otherwise. You definitely comprehend what you want to comprehend.

What do you PERSONALLY think of Suhrawardy then? I have some notions of what you might have in mind. I will try to match it with yours, is all. :)

Also please tell what do you think of the United Bengal proposition?

I couldn't be bothered to reply.

Highly improbable. What would the Guv have in it for him?

Burrows had nothing to gain from a riot. Only to lose. The ML however could (and did) prove their point. That even without total political support, they could pack a good punch. Physically.

I am happy to let the readers come to their own judgements, without interposing my own interpretations in between.

The Calcutta Riots of 1946 - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence
 
.
I couldn't resist, being a garrulous old fool.

My father joined police service in the 40s, and served most of his early years as liaison officer with the military at Cox's Bazaar. He made friends with many officers in the XIV Army - a chicken-curry loving Brigade Major named Cariappa, a Captain named Osmani, among others - but when the war wound down and the Allied troops moved on into south-east Asia, he was posted back at Serampore. In 1946, at the time of the Great Calcutta Killing, when the Muslims attacked the Hindus during Direct Action Day, on the afternoon of August 16, after an inflammatory speech by Suhrawardy at the Calcutta Maidan in the morning, he was posted there but had come down to Calcutta on a personal visit. Reaching that morning, he found the city very quiet, with most attention on the meeting going on at the Maidan. He was surprised to find a lack of bundobast - none of the watchful police presence that the Calcutta Police, in those days a tightly-run force with very high esprit de corps, was famous, even notorious for. No mounted police, no watchful AC with a black Maria, no constables, no motor-cycle Sergeants, nothing. He went to Lalbazar, where he had a friend to meet, and found, to his surprise, a number of officers at the control room. He was told that trouble was expected and everyone was tense about it, but there were 'orders' not to move hastily and not to move without instructions. An hour or so later, having finished his meeting, on his way out, he found the crowd of officers hovering around remained there, but noticeably very tense and under strain. He was told that the CM was there, agitated, and something was going on.

The story that we were all brought up with, from external sources, and part of urban legend, was that Suhrawardy, the CM, had delivered an inflammatory speech that morning, the Muslim League thugs were ready to act on it, and arms had been collected and distributed immediately the speech ended, and rioting broke out on the 16th afternoon. Urban legend further has it that Suhrawardy visited the police control room and ensured that no police intervention happened. My father felt apprehensive about his own beat at Serampore, and hurried back to make sure that nothing happened there as a consequence of trouble in Calcutta.

In those days, all young men who wanted to be in society were members of a night club on Theatre Road known as the 300 Club; there was a sly allusion to the 'upper 300' of Calcutta society in that name. After Serampore, my father was posted as DC South, and came to live as a bachelor, with his parents and brothers, at 2, Loudon Street. The club was a popular place. One evening, there was a disturbance; some Bengali gentlemen had had one too many, and had noticed Suhrawardy there and wanted to inflict corporal punishment on the CM for his role in the riots the previous year. My father intervened, took the somewhat shaken CM out and put him in his car. Suhrawardy, it should be mentioned, was a bon vivant, and loved the good life, and was a very active member of the 300 Club. They became friends, and had a couple of other common friends besides.

It was from Suhrawardy that my father heard, one evening, an embittered version of what had happened on Direct Action Day. There had been a discussion about it with the Governor, who had been informed that a public meeting would be held, and that the Muslim League line would be put forth, in unmistakable terms, and the legitimate demands of the League forcefully reiterated. Suhrawardy was under the impression that given this very broad hint, there would be action taken to heighten the police presence during and after the meeting. To his consternation, after his meeting, when he was leaving, he noticed a distinct lack of police presence. He felt uneasy, and in the afternoon, as his own sources brought in information of Muslim attacks and Hindu retaliation, he went to see for himself what was happening at the control room, the best place to get news of events throughout the city before the days of 24 hour TV broadcasts. At the control room, there was nothing going on, everyone was present listening to phoned-in reports about violence reported here or there, largely, then, in the early afternoon, mainly thugs killing innocent people of the opposite faith, no fighting among armed men as such. His demand for action led to a few vans being despatched to the worst hit areas but no strong police effort. The next day, the 17th, the violence was horrifying. The Sikhs had got involved, and they were bringing in numbers of men, all armed to the teeth, in lorry-loads (General Tuker, then serving at Fort William saw this himself). By that afternoon, Suhrawardy, in his own account, feeling that the situation was spiralling out of control and that the civil administration was no longer in command of the situation, called in the Army. Tuker tells a tale of how the Army intervened and restored law and order, but there are numerous accounts of how the Army would not take action even if there was a killing or a mob gathered in the next street, and only dealt with what was happening in their immediate presence.

While the riots burned themselves out, it left everybody traumatised. There had been no killing on this scale before, and this was to be the model of much violence later. It left Suhrawardy's reputation in tatters, because the police inaction was thought to be his doing, the visit to the control room was seen to be an act of manipulation of the police to allow his side the maximum freedom, and the army being called in early, as early as the second day, in fact, was not mentioned nor seen in people's eyes as action taken by him.

When these conversations took place, it was precisely the time when Suhrawardy was in talks with Sarat Bose and Kiran Shankar Roy about a third way, a Bengal option, whereby Bengal would be a third Dominion, quite apart from Pakistan in the west and India throughout the rest of British India, with no partition. Jinnah knew of this plan and these discussions, and was unhappy but reconciled to dealing with the western portion alone. He had given up on Bengal, more or less. It was at that time that agitated sections in the Bengal Congress put pressure on the Congress working committee, leading to Nehru and Patel intervening, and summoning Bose and Roy to Delhi to scotch all such discussions taking place. According to Suhrawardy, there had been very candid and transparent discussions between the three of them, Suhrawardy himself, Bose and Roy, about the riots, and he had been asked in very great detail about events that had taken place. Again, according to him, he had cleared up his role and his actions to the others, and they were satisfied that he was not responsible for the killing. He was very surprised, and very bitter, that in spite of this, there were elements in the Congress who were intransigent, and demanded a partition of Bengal, insisting that they would not trust Muslims to treat them fairly. That, then, is what happened, and the birth of Bangladesh was postponed by a quarter century, and took place with a truncated Bengal, with the Hindu majority districts out of it.

What never emerged, and what neither Suhrawardy nor my father sought to explore, was the question of the invisible hand. If Suhrawardy was telling the truth, then someone, somewhere, more powerful and influential than the CM, had held back the police, and had held back the Army at a vital time, and had caused a slaughter on a mass scale. Tuker says that it was Army intervention that restored law and order. Eye witnesses say that the Army did precious little. Tuker says that he had reports of Sikhs entering Calcutta in truckloads, with arms, and getting into the riots. The question arises - where were these Sikhs coming from, since the closest centre to Calcutta with a collection of Sikhs, which had its own Sikh population, was Jamshedpur. Could they have been sent distress signals on the 16th, and could they have mobilised and reached the next day?

Postscript: Strangely, there was comparatively less tension during Partition. People have heard about the riots in Calcutta, and about Gandhi's intervention. Those who are reading this account might wonder what personal experiences my father had during that time. He was still the DC (South). The riots were confined to the north of the city, mainly to Beleghata and those parts. The south was unaffected. There was not a single death in the Park Circus area, and there was only minor unrest, no killings, only slogan-shouting, in Metiabruz and Watgunge.

A second post-script: the last time there was any possibility of a meeting between Suhrawardy and my father was in the 50s, when S was then the Prime Minister of Pakistan. My father got a call in his office in Calcutta one day, from a man who identified himself as the ADC to the Prime Minister, to say that the PM had stopped over at Calcutta on his way to Dacca, and wanted my father to join him at lunch at Firpo's (where everybody who was anybody turned up at some time during the week for lunch). He was horrified, and explained as best as he could that this would have to be cleared by his seniors, including possibly a reference to Delhi, and so lunch would not be possible. That was the last time he heard from Suhrawardy.

Partition of Bengal (1947) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for sharing. Enjoyed reading this account.
 
.
Thank you for your piece. It was really interesting.

Admire the Sikhs, man. I understand the hate some have for them and why. They are not among the 'docile'.

So your father was one of the most powerful British police officers in Calcutta. So you were one of the 'elite' even back then.

We know Suhrawardy's silent support for the Hindu massacres. His party was served well. He remained silent in the future as well - in the future massacres.
We now know that you father had exonerated him of all crimes and pinned the blame on an invisible, unknown (perhaps imaginary?) foreign hand.

What do you PERSONALLY think of Suhrawardy then? I have some notions of what you might have in mind. I will try to match it with yours, is all. :)

Also please tell what do you think of the United Bengal proposition?


Highly improbable. What would the Guv have in it for him?

Burrows had nothing to gain from a riot. Only to lose. The ML however could (and did) prove their point. That even without total political support, they could pack a good punch. Physically.

Why do you think that British did not have any incentive in promoting Hindu-Muslim riots?

Again, I am not accusing or exonerating anyone here but a Muslim-Hindu riot would have surely strengthened the hands of British and weekend the opposition.


It is very well known that British have tried to divide people of India based on religion and language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Bengal_(1905)

 
.
Why do you think that British did not have any incentive in promoting Hindu-Muslim riots?

Again, I am not accusing or exonerating anyone here but a Muslim-Hindu riot would have surely strengthened the hands of British and weekend the opposition.


It is very well known that British have tried to divide people of India based on religion and language.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Bengal_(1905)


That earlier partition totally destroyed Hindu-Muslim unity. Before that, when Surendranath Bannerjee was being hounded by the British, Muslims and Hindus stood together opposing the British. Not just in Bengal but in a very wide swathe right across northern India, and in Bombay as well. But with this 1905 partition, and with Curzon's thinly veiled promises that the Muslims would gain substantially in the truncated territories, relations between the two communities took a down-turn and never recovered.
 
.
That earlier partition totally destroyed Hindu-Muslim unity. Before that, when Surendranath Bannerjee was being hounded by the British, Muslims and Hindus stood together opposing the British. Not just in Bengal but in a very wide swathe right across northern India, and in Bombay as well. But with this 1905 partition, and with Curzon's thinly veiled promises that the Muslims would gain substantially in the truncated territories, relations between the two communities took a down-turn and never recovered.


In many ways, Bengal remained a laboratory for testing many British Policies, which they used very effectively.
 
.
That earlier partition totally destroyed Hindu-Muslim unity. Before that, when Surendranath Bannerjee was being hounded by the British, Muslims and Hindus stood together opposing the British. Not just in Bengal but in a very wide swathe right across northern India, and in Bombay as well. But with this 1905 partition, and with Curzon's thinly veiled promises that the Muslims would gain substantially in the truncated territories, relations between the two communities took a down-turn and never recovered.

Absolutely, 1905 is the turning point in Hindu-Muslim relations which led to the creation of All-India Muslim League and Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha but it should also be remembered that it was Hindi-Urdu movements and subsequent actions of British loyalists like Syed Ahmad Khan which started to weaken the strength shown by people of India in the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 . Aligarh Muslim University which he created later became the epicenter for the partition of India.

Hindi–Urdu controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indian Rebellion of 1857 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The election that created Pakistan
Nadeem F. Paracha — Updated May 11, 2014 09:15am

Even till the early and mid-1940s, the leadership of the All India Muslim League (AIML) wasn’t quite sure exactly what its status was among the sizeable Muslim minority of India.
In 1944, AIML’s leading man and strategist, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, while talking to reporters in Bombay (present-day Mumbai), was lamenting that even though his opponents in the Indian National Congress (INC) were doing much to undermine AIML’s influence among the region’s Muslims, more damage in this respect was being done by certain Muslim politicians and outfits.
536ef8e468207.jpg

Confessional religious parties like the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind (JUH), and radical right-wing outfits such as the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar Movement were staunchly against the concept of ‘Muslim Nationalism’ being propagated by Jinnah and his party.
AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was derived from the thoughts of various Muslim intellectuals. Most of them had been inspired by the writings of 19th Century Muslim scholars such as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali.
Khan and Ali had pleaded to build a rational and modern Muslim middle-class in South Asia that would lead an intellectual and political movement to construct a distinct political and cultural identity for the Muslim minority of India.
But why were the AIML’s ideas in this regard being opposed by certain powerful Muslim groups?
JUH and radical groups like the Ahrar and the Khaksar believed that every Indian’s first goal should be independence from the British. They believed that Muslims of India were a significant minority (approximately 30per cent at the time) and (thus) would be in a position (after independence) to carve out a more powerful political, economic and cultural role for themselves in India.
They also claimed that AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was a construct based on the European idea of a nation-state and that Islam cannot be confined within the boundaries of nationalism.
AIML had performed poorly in most elections held in India’s Muslim-majority provinces. Bengal and Punjab contained the largest Muslim populations in undivided India. Though by the 1940s AIML had managed to make important inroads in Bengal, the party had been routed in Punjab in the elections held there in the 1930s.
In 1945 the British colonial government in India called for elections for the national and legislative assemblies. The election in the Punjab was to be held in February 1946.
The Congress’ aim was to win a majority in most provinces so it could press its claim to form a government of united (post-colonial) India. AIML’s goal was to win the polls in Muslim majority provinces so it could not only claim to be the largest Muslim party, but also assert its demand of carving out a separate Muslim nation-state from areas where the Muslims were in a majority.
The situation in the Punjab was tricky. Even though 57pc of Punjab’s population was Muslim, the AIML had badly lost the previous elections in the province.
Another defeat in the Punjab was guaranteed to deal a decisive blow to Jinnah and his party’s claims and demands.
The Congress understood this well and went all out to defeat the AIML in the Punjab.
The province was under the electoral dominance of the Unionists — a large outfit headed by Muslims belonging to the landed gentry and influential pirs (Muslim spiritual leaders). The party also had some Hindu and Sikh leaders.
In the last major election in the province (1937), the Unionists had won 95 seats (out of a total of 175). Congress had bagged 18 whereas the AIML had managed to win just one.
To guarantee another AIML thrashing in the Punjab, the Congress Party’s ace strategist, Sardar Patel, and the party’s leading Muslim leader, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, immediately went about constructing an airtight anti-AIML scenario.
The Congress, apart from contesting the election from its own platform (of Indian Nationalism), was also backing the Unionists in areas where the latter was expecting a tough fight from the AIML.
Apart from this, Patel dispatched a check of Rs50,000 (a hefty sum in those days) to Azad whose job it was to fund and co-ordinate anti-AIML Muslim groups such as the JUH, the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar.
The Ahrar and the Khaksar enjoyed support among Punjab’s Muslim petty-bourgeoisies. These two parties (along with JUH), provided the Congress with fiery clerics who went about denouncing the AIML as being a party of ‘British agents,’ and ‘fake Muslims’.
The powerful Unionist Party on the other hand claimed that it alone was the true representative of Punjab’s Muslim majority.
Jinnah, who had till then been repulsed by populist political tactics, got together with Punjab’s AIML President, Khan of Mamdot, to chalk out a strategy to counter the ruckus being raised by the Congress with the help of the Unionists, the Ahrar, the Khaskar, the JUH and the Sikh nationalist outfit, the Akali dal.
Jinnah and Mamdot first brought in hundreds of members of AIML’s student-wing, the All India Muslim Students Federation (AIMSF), from various parts of India. Also brought in were members of the AIMSF’s women’s wing.
College and university students (both male and female) belonging to the AIMSF were dispatched across the Punjab in groups and asked to hold small rallies in the cities, villages and towns of the province.
They were to explain AIML’s manifesto as a fight against economic exploitation and a struggle to create a separate Muslim nation-state where there will be economic benefits for all and religious harmony.
To counter the fiery denouncements being aired by members of the Ahrar, the Khaksar and the JUH, the AIML managed to win the support of a group of JUH leaders who had disagreed with their party’s policy of siding with the Congress and the Unionists.
Led by Islamic scholar, Alama Shabir Ahmad Usmani, this batch of JUH renegades successfully began to counter the theological arguments (against a separate Muslim nation-state) being leveled by the anti-AIML clerics and ulema.
The anti-AIML clerics had accused the AIML of ‘misguiding the Muslims of India’ and working to keep the Muslims under the influence of the forces of exploitation. The pro-AIML clerics counter-attacked by accusing the Ahrar and other such outfits of being Congress agents who were working to keep the Muslims ‘under the thumb of India’s Hindu majority.’
AIML was also armed with a rather radical manifesto. Largely authored by one of the leading members of the AIML’s leftist lobby — Danial Latifi (a committed Socialist) — the manifesto promised sweeping land reforms, religious harmony and an end to economic exploitation.
Another (last minute) attainment that Jinnah and his party managed to achieve was the support of the influential pirs of the province. Punjab’s pirs had for long been associated with the Unionist Party, but just as the elections drew near, many of them were convinced by the AIML leadership to switch sides and become part of the AIML.
The voter turnout was high on the day of the polls. The Unionists were expected to win the bulk of the seats, followed by the Congress.
But the results shocked the Congress and the Unionists. The AIML managed to win 73 seats (out of 175). The Unionists could only bag 20. The Congress won 51 and the Sikh Akali dal 22.
The Ahrar and the Khaksars failed to win even a single seat. The AIML bagged the largest share of the total Muslim vote (65pc). Just 19pc of the Muslim votes went to Ahrar and the Khaksars.
Though the Congress, the Unionists and the Akali dal managed to form a wobbly and short-lived coalition government in the Punjab, AIML finally managed to augment itself as India’s largest Muslim party.
It also did well in two other Muslim majority provinces. It won 113 (out of 230) seats in the Bengal and 27 (out of 60) in Sindh.
The results greatly accelerated the party’s demand for a separate Muslim nation-state, and after winning the provincial election in another Muslim-majority region, the NWFP (in early/mid-1947), the party finally managed to carve out Pakistan from the rest of India (August 1947).
The election that created Pakistan - Pakistan - DAWN.COM
 
.
1.The family that Suhrowardy belonged to was one of the most prominent Muslim families not only of SA but globally. In academic excellence there was no Hindu or Muslim leader who excelled him. The great man always stood by the oppressed. It was he who had defended Maj Gen MI Majeed, the Bengali officer mischievously implicated by envious elements in the profession, in the Karachi Iraqi Shah Faisal murder attempt case. Again it was he who dared to defend Gen Akbar Khan and his colleagues in the RWP conspiracy case. Of course he lost both cases. But the great man got all the convicted released when he became PM.

2. At partition he was the fittest man to be PM. He had support in both wings. He was the most experienced having been the PM of the largest province in British India. He was totally honest - and even intellectually honest. This was a mistake Jinnah committed for which he suffered in his last days, and Pakistan was denied the establishment of a democratic base.

3. The second mistake centering Suhroawrdy was committed by Ayub. He jailed him in totally baseless charges. And then forced him into exile. Some claim Suhrowardy was also assassinated by the Pak establishment. Ayub could have involved him in some role - even as an opposition leader for the future of the country.
 
.
Interest takes various shapes, sizes, dimensions, as your reactions and responses show.



Yes, they always wore their hearts on their sleeves. They were far more prominent in Calcutta than they are today. Today they are a thin, diluted anaemic sliver of people; back in the day, they had tremendous respect and affection in society. It was known that sending your womenfolk away in a taxi was quite safe if the driver was a Sardar. Gyan Singh Sohanpal even became a minister, unfortunately for the wrong party.



A Deputy Commissioner of Police is not one of the most powerful. And I was not born until years later.



If you followed the story at all, and if you followed the copious amounts of researched and published material, you would not have written such a thing. The problem is that having made up your mind at an early age that Muslims are evil, you force all the facts that you encounter into that framework.



As it happens, my father had nothing to do with exonerating him. Nor did he pin the blame on anyone. Imaginary or otherwise. You definitely comprehend what you want to comprehend.



I couldn't be bothered to reply.



I am happy to let the readers come to their own judgements, without interposing my own interpretations in between.

The Calcutta Riots of 1946 - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

Why do you think that British did not have any incentive in promoting Hindu-Muslim riots?

Again, I am not accusing or exonerating anyone here but a Muslim-Hindu riot would have surely strengthened the hands of British and weekend the opposition.


It is very well known that British have tried to divide people of India based on religion and language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Bengal_(1905)
You have quoted only your personal account. Not published material or otherwise. The source you quoted in the end puts you in the list of 'Suhrawardy apologist' as mentioned in it as well. I don't mind any of that. You have your opinions and that is fine by me. I love to read stories any day.

I don't consider Muslims as enemy btw. I can also accuse you of considering Hindus or Sikhs your enemy or etc. It would be meaningless.

In any case, I am curious - what do you think of the United Bengal plan? A secular liberal Muslim League controlled independent Bengal?

I genuine want to know what your view since your family was among the most powerful in British Bengal...
@Rain Man @MilSpec

[QUOTE="dadeechi, post: 8016503, member: 171993"]Absolutely, 1905 is the turning point in Hindu-Muslim relations which led to the creation of All-India Muslim League and Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha but it should also be remembered that it was Hindi-Urdu movements and subsequent actions of British loyalists like Syed Ahmad Khan which started to weaken the strength shown by people of India in the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857[/QUOTE]
Naive.

The 'Unity' is imaginary. Has always been. The matter is a bit tricky here. If you ABSOLUTELY want to know I will explain. But I honestly don't wish to.
 
Last edited:
.
You have to name him. I know my father was a fervent admirer of Sher-i-Bangal, Fazlul Haque Sahib. So much so that he once did something which shocked me when he told me about it many years later. He actually touched the old man's feet, while wearing his uniform. The old man just asked him if he was Professor N***** G****'s son. But to think that he did this stunned me; he was so Brit the rest of the time.

Wow, I guess he really loved Sher-e-Bangla and his philanthropic acts!
I don't think my great grandfather had much to do with Sher-e-Bangala, he worked mostly with Suhrawardy and colleagues from Muslim League (and later Awami Muslim League!). I can't recall his full name, but even if I did I wouldn't feel comfortable disclosing in a public forum. :D

In any case, I am curious - what do you think of the United Bengal plan? A secular liberal Muslim League controlled independent Bengal?


Formation of the All Pakistan Muslim League was a result of the divisive politics triggered by British policies. In an united secular Bengal, there would be no need for any Muslim or Hindu league - the idea was both would jointly share power in the government.

Trust me, Bangalis are of the precise temperament required to make this work - an arrangement of this sort wouldn't work in North India, Pakistan or the Arab world!
 
.
I think so too.

Last night as I was uploading this, I read an account of the proceedings of the enquiry commission, and it was an eye-opener. The Commissioner was not obviously in charge of the situation, and had been posted in only weeks before.

same old divide & rule policy be it during the 1857 mutiny when the daughter of the Maratha's from U.P Rani Jhansi ki Rani & the son of the Mughal's Bahadur Shah Zafar refused to play ball to the British , they got the Sikh's & the Muslims from North West & the Gurkha's from Nepal/Bihar to do their Dirty job. & once the Sikhs & the Muslims of the north west refused to play ball (Bacha Khan ,Mehmud Ali Kasuri ,Shahnawaz Khan) they went down south to Gujarat via Bengal/U.P & Bihar
slimy Bast*rds they were in a league of their own ! the poison of their manipulations & their results , unmatched in their legacy tainted in blood , tears & distress is a testimony of this fact ! from the Mid-East to South Asia to South East Asia ! remember sir , the "Buffer State" & the coming cold war analogy which i had posted a few months back , in fact India for all practical purpose was divided long before 1947 in fact it was divided on the day when "Berlin" fell !
 
Last edited:
.
I'm being a silent reader of your post. :D It's a part of history that's very politicised and so very hard to get unbiased account of the events - thanks for the memoir from a gentleman who had lived in that era.

Wonder if your father ever ran into one of my great grandfather, one of the influential Bangali Muslim politician of the time in southern (East) Bengal. I've never had the chance to hear his version of the events - he was long gone by the time I learnt to speak. ;p


Hi,

If it comes to that----maybe Joe's dad ran into my grandfather as well---. My grandfather worked for the railways and was stationed in calcutta before partition-----.:enjoy::enjoy::enjoy:
 
Last edited:
.
You have quoted only your personal account. Not published material or otherwise. The source you quoted in the end puts you in the list of 'Suhrawardy apologist' as mentioned in it as well. I don't mind any of that. You have your opinions and that is fine by me. I love to read stories any day.

I don't consider Muslims as enemy btw. I can also accuse you of considering Hindus or Sikhs your enemy or etc. It would be meaningless.

In any case, I am curious - what do you think of the United Bengal plan? A secular liberal Muslim League controlled independent Bengal?

I genuine want to know what your view since your family was among the most powerful in British Bengal...
@Rain Man @MilSpec


Naive.

The 'Unity' is imaginary. Has always been. The matter is a bit tricky here. If you ABSOLUTELY want to know I will explain. But I honestly don't wish to.


An United Bengal or Greater Bengal is but inevitable. Actually a prosperous self contained BANSAM may evolve with both Bengals and NE. Actually that was the final objective of Mujib killers.
 
.
Hi,

If it comes to that----maybe Joe's dad ran into my grandfather as well---. My grandfather worked for the railways and was stationed in calcutta before partition-----.

Haha, anyone else thinks your grandfather might have run into Joe's dad, please raise your hands! :D

Joe did mention his grandfather was stationed in South-East Bengal for a while - that's why I felt the urge to talk about my great grandfather, who was a very influential political leader in the same area.
 
Last edited:
.
Hi,

If it comes to that----maybe Joe's dad ran into my grandfather as well---. My grandfather worked for the railways and was stationed in calcutta before partition-----.:enjoy::enjoy::enjoy:

another Calcutta veteran welcome sir welcome its an honor to have you in the club

:cheers:

hum angreizon ke ghulamon ki ek hi nishani ek hi pareshani Culcutta mein looti huween hamare buzurgon ke jawani !

(we the servants of the English , have this as our glory as well as the stigma of our legacy , we owe it to our elders services to the British during their hey days in the capital of the "Raj" Calcutta )
 
Last edited:
.
Wow, I guess he really loved Sher-e-Bangla and his philanthropic acts!
I don't think my great grandfather had much to do with Sher-e-Bangala, he worked mostly with Suhrawardy and colleagues from Muslim League (and later Awami Muslim League!). I can't recall his full name, but even if I did I wouldn't feel comfortable disclosing in a public forum. :D




Formation of the All Pakistan Muslim League was a result of the divisive politics triggered by British policies. In an united secular Bengal, there would be no need for any Muslim or Hindu league - the idea was both would jointly share power in the government.

Trust me, Bangalis are of the precise temperament required to make this work - an arrangement of this sort wouldn't work in North India, Pakistan or the Arab world!

The idea was to create a Socialist state in all of Bengal(and if possible Assam included)...even if Hindus and Muslims did have animosity a Socialist rule(usually secular and persuasive and controlling) would "sanitize" the relationship that would probably have lasted forever. People from the Eastern side of Bengal might or might not tolerate Hindu rule...but they definitely cannot tolerate being ruled by other races(They have been ruled by foreigners before but in most cases they had to assimilate and become Bengalis).
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom