Talk:Direct Action Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Direct Action Day has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Direct Action Day article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

[edit] March 2008 Edits

I have recently edited little portions of this article, majority of them were inclusion of images. Still further edits are needed to bring this article upto wiki standards. Please discuss the change that must be made. If you disagree with my changes, please leave a note in my talk page.

[edit] 58.65.172.241 (talk)

Please refrain from personal attacks and unprovoked revertions. Btw, I am not any ones sockpuppet. An admin may help you resolving this issue. The changes I had made were from academic sources and I had removed some portion/statements, critical of muslim league, that were not supported by credible sources. Please remember, this is not a battle ground. Thank you. Sumanch (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My friend you are removing all the links and sources by Stanley Wolpert, Dawn, etc. I am afraid I cannot accept your point of view. My suggestion is that you stop taking out all the sources that disagree with your point of view. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read Neutral point of view (NPOV). Stanley Wolpert's sources were in my edits. When I started editing from a point where the Dawn's materials were taken out. This is a controversial issue and views of both side should be represented. A reasonable article cannot progress if it is reverted just because you donot agree with it. You had made some edits, so did I. It has to progress from some point. I proceded with my edits based on what was in this talk page. The images I had added, were from Getty image/Hulton Archive. Please read what you are taking out. If you need the sources for my edits, if you cannot get them on your own, let me know, I will provide them for you. Your own edits did not stand upto the standards of NPOV. I hope you will sign up with wikipedia and we will be able to construct this article in a rational manner. Please remember this is not a forum to express anger and I hope you will refrain from personal insults and name calling. If you feel I am someones sockpuppet, you may take it to appropiate admin. Thank you.Sumanch (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to your one-sided deletions, You removed references to Ayesha Jalal's seminal work as well as works by Shaista Ikramullah. Ayesha Jalal is a tenured professor at Tufts and is an academic of remarkable class. You also removed references to published works such as the transfer of power papers and H M Seervai's "Partition of India Legend and Reality". I am afraid you are lying when you say that you don't have a malafide intent behind all of this.58.65.172.241 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims and Counter claims

In your edit(58.65.172.241) -
1. Ayesha Jalal (Cited for 1 claim "#21") - Claim - According to most historians, no evidence was found of Muslim League's involvement in the riots.

Her book The Sole Spokesman does not talk about Direct Action Day. However it talks about the Congress - ML rivalry in extensive detail. I did not find any mention of the Calcutta or Noakhali Riots in her book. But her writings about Congress - ML rivalry can be used in the context of DAD.Sumanch (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence Against
* Sir John Burrow, Governor of Ben., IOR: L/P&J/8/655 f.f. 95, 96-107
  3. ...Congressmen had in the past enforced hartals by violence, and Muslims might be tempted to follow their example...
  6. ...there was excitement throughout the city, that shops were being forced to close,...Later reports indicate that the Muslims were
     in an aggressive mood from early in the day and that their processions were well armed with the lathis, iron rods and missiles...
     ...Their efforts to force Hindu shops to close ... indicating that the Hindus were also not unprepared for trouble ...
* Direct Action - The TIME Magazine
     But most observers wondered how Jinnah could fail to know what would happen when he called for "direct action." Shortly before
     the riots broke out, his own news agency (Orient Press) reported that Jinnah, anticipating violence, was sleeping on the
     floor these nights—to toughen up for a possible sojourn in jail.

This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and SPECULATION. Ayesha Jalal's book on the other hand is an authentic piece of work. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioned citations are not considered Original Research or Speculation and I have never questioned the scholarship of Ayesha Jalal's book.Sumanch (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  (will add more after I am done readibg the book)

BTW - do you want to start the arguments from the middle of the article or do you think it will be more appropriate to start from the "top"(introduction) and go through the whole thing?

  -- my suggestion - We should start from the top.

Let me know- Thanks. Sumanch (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

My suggestion

“

Direct Action Day, also known as the Great Calcutta Riot[1], and "The Week of the Long Knives",[2][3] started on August 16, 1946. It was a day, the Muslim League had planned genaral stike, hartal, to protest the rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan by the Congress Party and to assert[4][5] its demand for a separate homeland during the Indian Freedom Struggle against the British Raj. This strike triggered massive riots in Calcutta instigated by the Muslim League and followed by retaliatory attacks on Muslims by Congress followers and supporters led to further riots in the surrounding regions of Bengal and Bihar. In Calcutta, within 72 hours, more than 4,000 people lost their lives and 100,000 residents of Calcutta City alone were left homeless.

”

Difference from current

Sentence 1 - ...the Affirmative Action Plan... - I haven't seen any sources that calls it as such.

Sentence 2 -

Muslim League had called a general strike, hartal, not just merely a peaceful protest - business must remain closed to support their cause and express soliderity.Asiatic Society of Bangladesh,,Sato Tsugitaka,IOR: L/P&J/8/655 f.f. 95, 96-107. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanch (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But why hartal? -To Protest- 1. The hegemony of Congress(Hindu) in Constituent Assembly.

2. Originally the Cabinet Mission plan, May 16, called for an Unified India. It was rejected by ML. The second plan of June 16, two separate nations and Congress had rejected it. Muslim League was the proponent of two nation theory and if Muslim League did not protest Congress' dissision, it would have been perceived as if ML agreed Congress' united India.India's Partition, Start from pg.291

3. ML had been demanding Pakistan for a while. This would assert its demand for a separate nation.

...We are forced in our own self-protection to abandon constitutional methods...

...If the Muslims were not granted their separate Pakistan they would launch direct action...

...Why do you expect me alone to sit with folded hands? I also am going to make trouble...

...We will either have a divided India or a destroyed India...

Jinnah's Comments - Excerptes from Margaret Bourke-White's book, Halfway to Freedom[User:Sumanch|Sumanch]] (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Did some more research - ML rejected 1^st Cabinet mission plan of May 16 and Congress had rejected June 16 plan. Therefor, ML was protesting Congress' rejection of the second plan. Suranjan Das pg.283)Sumanch (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sentence 3 -

"This strike triggered massive riots in Calcutta..." - This part is true. There was a strike — Riots happened during the strike.

...instigated by the Muslim League ...

ML had called a strike and a strike would have been considered a seccess only if the shops remain closed. As burrows reported shops were being forced to close. Since, Hindu public opinion was mobilized around the 'Akhand Hindusthan' (United India) slogan_{Suranjan Das Pg 283}, sucess of the strike would have been counter productive. Therefore, forced closer corelates with "instigation" and "trigger". Asiatic Society of Bangladesh(...when League volunteers forced Hindu shopkeepers in North Calcutta to close their shops...)Sumanch (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(I did not find anything that suggests muslims were the first to attack everywhere. Therefore I reworded it.)

...followed by retaliatory attacks on Muslims by Congress followers and supporters... - If ML's action was instigation, Congress' action was retaliation.

...led to further riots... - This is true. Riots began in Calcutta and then spread.

Sentence 4 -

"In Calcutta, within 72 hours, more than 4,000 people lost their lives and 100,000 residents of Calcutta City alone were left homeless." - Suranjan Das pg.283. and burrows.Sumanch (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background

para 1 - I am in agreement.

Para 2 - 3 - Agree most part except the use of "civil disobedience". It should be "Direct Action".

In his interview with Margaret Bourke-White, he states -

“

If the Muslims were not granted their separate Pakistan they would launch "direct action."

”

He specifically uses the term "direct action". Civil disobedience had been used in India for years as a tool of negociation for years. He clarifies hisself by saying

“

Why do you expect me alone to sit with folded hands? I also am going to make trouble.

”

Now it will be unfair to correlate this with deliberate planning of violence. But it is not "civil disobedience". Therefore, his own words "Direct Action" should be used.

I disagree with the use of "dubious" tags with Margaret Bourke-White's reports. Ms. Bourke-White is well respected through out the world as a journalist and her ethical standards. Questioning the credibility such an icon just because her reports contradict someones opinion is a violation of WIki NPOV policy. Therefore they should be removed.Sumanch (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

para 4 - I am in agreement.

Direct Action is well defined on Wikipedia. So your point is wrong. Furthermore, Margaret Bourk-white's account is fraught with contradictions, which I will list if need be. To rely on just her work is unfortunate and wrong. Her journalese account should be balanced out with some authentic historian's work. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Jinnah's own orders to the Muslim League two days before the direct action day made it clear that it would be a day for peaceful civil disobedience. Direct Action is also defined by all political scientists as "civil disobedience" ... infact it is an interchangeable term. You may look at the link above. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All point in this section are covered by neutral sources. Therefore, removing "Original research" from this section and moving it over "Riots in Calcutta".

[edit] Riots in Calcutta

I believe Para 1 is more appropriate in the conclusion of this section as it lays responsibilities of an event that has already occurred.

para 1 -

“

There are several views on the exact cause of the direct action day riots. According to the Hindu and Sikh intelligentsia, riots, instigated by members of the Muslim League in the city, were the consequence of the declaration by the Muslim League that Muslims throughout the subcontinent were to 'suspend all business' to support their demand for an independent Pakistan. The Muslims believed that the Congress Party was behind the violence in an effort to bring the fragile cross-communal Muslim League ministry in Bengal.

”

Changes and their reasons

Sentence 1 - "There are several views on the exact cause of the direct action day riots." - True

Sentence 2 -

"According to the Hindu and Sikh intelligentsia..."

The use of attributive nouns Hindu and Sikh margimalizes fair number of historians who are neither Hindu and nor Sikh, and who's works and studies are not considered Fringe theories. This also contradicts reports and records that came out immediately after the riots.

Added Volunteer Corps as they were paramilitary units dedicated to uphold ML's policies. The rest can stay the same.

Sentence 3 -

"The Muslims believed that..."

Not All Muslims believe that ML had no responsibility of instigating the riots.Historians and activists, who deeply sympathized with the partition, have levied fair portion of the blame on ML for escalating the events to such tragic proportion. Therefore, changed The Muslims to supporters of the Muslim League.Sumanch (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noakhali Massacar

Noakhali should be moved to its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanch (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Much more balanced

Sumanch, I must say you've balanced out the tone quite a bit now. However, please see that there are people with agendas trying to hijack this article. Let us work together to give a balanced picture. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No my tone and intensions are the same. My goal was to create a FA quality article without POV. I had just started and you kept disrupting my edits.Sumanch (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel

The article is full of weasel words, and needs to be cleansed by those who are editing it.

Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Muslim and Hindu mobs attacked and killed each other, Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence

And then

Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Hindu mobs were let loose on the Muslims,Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence

Reads like a call to another riot. Heh!--ÆN↑ÞÆº§®»Ŧ 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is being addressed. First two sections have been cleaned. Further cleansing is will be made soon.Sumanch (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cabinet Mission Plan

The Cabinet Mission Plan accepted by Jinnah and AIML was of 16th May which kept India United with a three-tier system and a central legislature without parity. The alternative plan was not in issue because Muslim League had accepted the 16th May plan. The 16th June alternative was merely a plan that would be considered as an alternative to 16th May.

Congress refused to accept grouping and that is what led to Jinnah's disaffectation. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That in not correct -

Jinnah's response to the May 16^th plan was -

“	...I regret that the Mission should have negatived the Muslim demand for the establishment of a complete sovereign state of Pakistan, which we still hold is the only solution of the constitutional problem of India and which alone can secure stable Governments and lead to the happiness and welfare not only of the two major communities, but of all the peoples of this sub-continent. It is all the more regrettable that the Mission should have though fit to advance commonplace and exploded arguments against Pakistan and resorted to special pleadings couched in deplorable language which is calculated to hurt the feelings of Muslim India. It seems that this was done by the Mission simply to appease and placate the Congress, because when they come to face the realities, they themselves have made the following pronouncement embodied in paragraph 5 of the statement...	”
— M.A. Jinnah (22 May 1946) - Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam - [Khurshid Yusufi]

“	...I advised you to reject the Cripps proposal, I advised you to reject the last Simla Conference formula. But I cannot advise you to reject the British Cabinet Mission's proposal. I advise you to accept it."..Mr Jinnah added "The Lahore resolution did not mean that when Muslims put forward their demand, it must be accepted at once. It is a big struggle and a continued struggle. The first struggle was to get the representative character of the League accepted. That fight they had started and they had won. Acceptance of the Mission's proposal was not the end of their struggle for Pakistan. They should continue their struggle till Pakistan was achieved."...	”
— M.A. Jinnah (6 June 1946) - Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam - [Khurshid Yusufi]

Therefore, the Cripps Mission proposed the alternate plan which was rejected by Congress. It was not a plan that was merely considered as an alternative to 16^th May plan. On July 10, in order to denounce the June 16^th plan, Nehru declared that the Congress will modify the plan, in the Consttuent Assembly, as it pleases. Now, that would have rendered the entire Cabinet Mission to a mere "fassion show".

This was the precursor to the call for Direct Action. Sumanch (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further riots in India

IMO, this section is rather large, since this article is on teh Direct Action Day itself, not the following riots. This section can be made into a single paragraph, and assimilated in "aftermath" (rather than the mentioning the details such as whose houses were attacked in Noakhali etc. Those come under the purview of the article Noakhali riot). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)