Talk:Direct Action Day/Archive 2

content issues
Nobody is editing for Hkelkar, Pahari Sahib. However, even if Hkelkar agreed with this content, you are wrong on the content and engaging in vandalism. I edited this page before Hkelkar, edited it a bit while Hkelkar was here, and am editing it post-Hkelkar.
 * Stanley Wolpert is a well regarded expert on Indian history, his books meet WP:RS
 * Hindus were not let loose like dogs. Both groups killed each other in this orgy of violence.
 * The Hindu is a reliable source, do not remove reliable sources, that's called vandalism
 * A primary source is fine if quoted, and not interpreted in the article, per WP:RS
 * Scholarly journals are reliable sources, removing them constitutes vandalism.
 * is the correct formatting
 * Category:1946 riots is also a useful category, since this was a riot in 1946

I am no Hkelkar proxy, and since you seem to know Hkelkar well, you should know there is no proof linking me to Hkelkar in any way (see Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Proposed_decision). Any more of these spurious accusations and I will report you for these dastardly personal attacks. Baka man  17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Spurious allegations? - you reverted the article without giving a reason - as did 70.112.2.88, both of you reverted to the version by Ghanadar galpa / Hkelkar, removing POV tags and making significant revisions to text, without discussion, given this context it is not a "dastardly personal attack" - how is it even a 'personal attack'? (never mind dastardly), to suggest that you appear "to be a proxy of User:Hkelkar". On closer inspection, you appear to be a seasoned editor and one that has already been accused of being involved with Hkelkar (which I only just found out thanks to what you posted above) - perhaps you are the one who is threading on thin ice here not me?


 * Pahari Sahib (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So instead of dealing with content, you are engaging in wikilawyering. If I wanted to be like you, I could accuse you of making edits like Nadirali/Siddiqui/Szhaider/Unre4L, who have edited this page in a similar manner in the past. Unlike you or Hkelkar, I have actually (gasp?) utilized the talkpage for good faith discussion. As stated above, I edited this page before Hkelkar, and have edited numerous other pages dealing with Islamism in 20th century Bengal, which this clearly falls under. That is why I was interested in how to improve this mishmash of text, but it seems you are more interested in Hkelkarphobia.  Baka man  17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To respond to your points above, nowhere in the text did it state Hindus were" let loose like dogs", I do agree however that "Both groups killed each other in this orgy of violence." I do agree that the The Hindu is a reliable source, - however so is the Dawn which you removed, so I could based on what you said about me - also accuse you of removing reliable sources and engaging in vandalism. I undid User:Ghanadar galpa revision, you consider this vandalism? I also undid 70.112.2.88 revision as this reverted  the text back to Ghandar (aka Hkelkar) - and appeared to be a sock. After this however you undid my revision, reverting back to Hkelkar's version - no reason was given for this, - and also removing referenced text, when I said that your edit "appears to be a proxy of User:Hkelkar" -  I had no idea that you had even been accused of being his meatpuppet.


 * It has to be said, that neither version of the text was perfect, but the version you reverted to had much bigger issues, it is interesting that you mention Stanley Wolpert, one example of the problem with your revision is the change made to the following para


 * Some authors have claimed that most of the victims were Hindus . However certain others claim that that "appreciably more Muslims were killed than Hindus". On Pages 286-287 of Jinnah of Pakistan, OUP, 1993 edition Stanley Wolpert. The rioting reduced on the 22nd of the same month"


 * was changed to

Most of the victims were Hindus"


 * The text needs to be balanced, I have no interested in trying to present a history of angelic Muslims and bad Hindus, mobs of both communities were engaged in violence, but the edit I have shown above is clearly unbalanced


 * And also the following

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 undermine the fragile cross-communal Muslim League ministry in Bengal.


 * was changed to

The 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.


 * Given all this, how can you accuse me of wikilawyering?, Also you accused me of editing this page in a similar manner to "Nadirali/Siddiqui/Szhaider/Unre4L", this appears to me to be an attempt to muddy the waters - of the four only Siddiqui has edited the page and made just one edit, changing Indian subcontinent to South Asia. So really you cannot accuse me of editing like them, whereas I was, given the misuse of sources, I believe justified in the comparision I made, If you accuse of me of being interested in "Hkelkarphobia", perhaps I could respond and accuse you of being interested in "Hkelkarphilia"?


 * Oh yes one more thing, yes reflist is the correct formatting as I have done here - which you then removed (and then re-added). I agree that Category:1946 riots is a useful cat, and I concede that it was an oversight not to have added it back in.


 * And finally, our edits do not necessarily have to be in opposition to each other, but I will oppose any attempt to try and make the article unbalanced. In fact to bury the hatchet, I will leave the page alone for now, perhaps you can see that maybe I do have a point in what I have written - and hopefully perhaps take corrective action to the issues I have highlighted


 * Thanks


 * Pahari Sahib (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (deindent) I agree completely, our edits are not completely in opposition. It was only removal of certain letters that were treated as primary sources, and what appeared to be removal of text from poorly quoted sources that caught my eye. This page isn't much more than a mishmash of quotes, and I will of course try to procure the sources to get a better look. The content seems to be relatively contentious, but the second "misrepresentation" is a mainstream view. Most texts agree that Jinnah called for DAD, so staying it was started by Muslims is not actually incorrect. Baka man  23:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually my argument was not that side x started/sparked the violence instead of side y, it was in response to a massive change in this contentious topic, but otherwise I am in agreement. Pahari Sahib (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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. 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.
 * 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)

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)

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 1st 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) sloganSuranjan 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)

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".

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)

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

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)

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)

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 16th 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...


 * ...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."...

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 16th May plan. On July 10, in order to denounce the June 16th 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)

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)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

POV and clearly inaccurate material
"The protest triggered massive riots in Calcutta,[7][8] instigated[4][7] by the Muslim League and its Volunteer Corps against Hindus and Sikhs"

Until such 'sourced' but clearly point of view material remains in the heading I don't see how this section can be seen as neutral. Can out Indian friends Please leave the 'disputed' status until this is resolved and the article actually reflects truth rather than shows the leaders of the Muslim league to have 'deliberately encouraged' fatal attacks on other religious communities. Khokhar (talk) 22:22, 27 April 200 __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ It seems that there is a large amount of unsourced claims. Here is how the TIME magazine reported the item in August 1946 when it happened. Please note (1) This is a neutral source -- not Hindu, not Muslim, not British. Therefore, this is believable. (2) The first few lines say that this was the biggest Moslem-Hindu riot (up to that time. (3) The last few lines indicate that Jinnah knew that he has committed a crime by inciting riots and his own news agency reported that he was preparing to go to jail for the crime. My editorial comment is that the British government did nothing to punish Jinnah as he had feared.

Back to Article

Click to Print

Monday, Aug. 26, 1946 INDIA: Direct Action

India suffered the biggest Moslem-Hindu riot in its history. Moslem League Boss Mohamed Ali Jinnah had picked the 18th day of Ramadan for "Direct Action Day" against Britain's plan for Indian independence (which does not satisfy the Moslems' old demand for a separate Pakistan). Though direct, the action was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta's streets.

Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta's British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem slums. Thousands of homeless families roamed the city in search of safety and food (most markets had been pilfered or closed). Police blotters were filled with stories of women raped, mutilated and burned alive. Indian police, backed by British Spitfire scouting planes and armored cars, battled mobs of both factions. Cried Hindu Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (who is trying to form an interim government despite the Moslems' refusal to enter it): "Either direct action knocks the Government over, or the Government knocks direct action over."

By the 21st day of Ramadan, direct action had killed some 3,000 people and wounded thousands more. Said one weary police officer: "All we can do is move the bodies to one side of the street." Vultures tore into the rapidly putrefying corpses (among them, the bodies of many women & children).

Like other Indian leaders, Jinnah denounced the "fratricidal war." 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.

Find this article at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,933559,00.html supplied by Honestabewiki (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) HonestAbewiki Khokhar (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources used, especially the pertinent paragraphs (pages 111-114) from the book "Muslim Societies" by Sato Tsugitaka, and the Banglapedia article . These show that although the exact definition of "Direct action" was not clear to either the leaders of the League or the mass, there was preparation by the league activists towards rioting. A "very strong militant current" ran through Muslim masses (not my words, I am quoting the book). Have a look at the appeal issued by the central league leaders: "Today let every Muslim also take this pledge of sacrifice in the cause of national freedom... Pakistan is ours... We shall fight for it. We shall die for it. Take it we must, or periah." (available in the page 113 of the book).
 * If you have some time, you can go through all other sources listed in the article, where there are description of preparation for the direct action day by the League.
 * This article merely relates what happened, on the basis of available sources. If the sources show that leaders encouraged attacks, the article just tells that, it is not made up. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My real issue with the article so far, as noted, is with the first paragraph and specifically the part

"riots in Calcutta, instigated[4][7] by the Muslim League and its Volunteer Corps against Hindus and Sikhs,[1][8]"

As you pointed out it is sourced and clearly states that the Muslim league directed pre-determined violence towards other religious communities. Before I move on to the sources I just wanted to clear up a couple of points you raised, firstly the word 'Direct action' doesn't necessarily mean violence 'should' be used and it certainly does not mean 'riot', it is also accepted that the word 'hartal' or 'general strike' could be used just as well and so all three words can, in this instance at least, be considered synonymous or the same. I would also like to clear up that, I quote "Today let every Muslim also take this pledge of sacrifice in the cause of national freedom... Pakistan is ours... We shall fight for it. We shall die for it. Take it we must, or periah", doesn't have to mean Jinnah wanted violence, he was/could simply be stating that Indian Muslims must strongly and passionately fight for Pakistan (by having a general strike and closing their business for the day) and not necessarily by being violent towards other communities, it is in fact very common for leaders to use such words for political motivation and not necessarily violence. I don't think I have come across hardly any respected historians who hold the view that Jinnah wanted violence, quite the opposite, and he clearly and unambiguously stated his opposition to violence on a number of occasions. There are many sources showing Jinnah's views against any form of violence. He even contrasted with Gandhi's view of civil disobedience and only, I quote, "resigned from Congress in 1920 when he became disillusioned with the violence and communal passions unleashed by Gandhi's Congress-Khilafat civil disobedience campaigns", another source from a site used in the very section in question, here , and another, reporting talks between Mountbatten and the leaders of the Subcontinent, here

However that's Semantics and shouldn't really be considered a core issue and I will only try to disprove any form of 'violence' or 'rioting' was 'instigated' or directed in a pre-determined manner by The Muslim league's leadership.

"Instigated" ;Source no 4, links to

I have read a through the work of the first five authors and a lot of the sixth; Mr Nariak; who has been quoted as the source here. Though I found the some author's views and choice of sources to be, at times, overly critical and somewhat one-sided, and some simply didn't understand what they were writing; such as Knut s. vikor's assertions here which explicitly say that a Scholar must follow a single madh'hab or school of though when in fact Scholars as renowned as Ahmad ibn Hanbal; himself considered founder of the Hanbali Madh'hab or school of fiqh studied from scholars such as Hanafi mad'dhab judge Abu Yusuf and Imam Al-Shafi’i the founder of the Shafi'i madh'hab. I was, however, impressed at the way some of the authors tried to explain and understand each aspect covered and used a a wide enough variety of sources to be considered genuine work. I also found the work by Mushirul Hassan quite interesting, as he tried the explain the mind-set of the average Bengali and how he percieved it was influenced, here.

As far as the source in question, by Mr Nariak, is concerned, I think it is, at best, flimsy. The sourced page describes how a British 'newspaper reporter' apparently got the 'impression' that Jinnah wanted a 'mass unconstitutional violence' and then goes on to say he was probably mistaken and the secretary explained to him what Jinnah really meant, I wonder why he said the part about the 'mass unconstitutional violence' and more importantly why Jinnah would even say such a thing to a news reporter.. In any case the author then goes on to explain what 'a military intelligence officer had said to a member of the American consulate in Bombay', I can't see how this can be considered a reliable source, of course I am not doubting the author's intentions were probably good.

"Instigated" ;Source no 7, links to

In this case I take the source to be related to this, I quote;

"The Muslim League Chief Minister in his address reportedly assured the audience that the military and police had been 'restrained'. This was interpreted by the gathering as an open invitation to commit violence on its rival community"

This does not in any way prove that the Minister asked the crowd to commit violence, it would be fair to argue that such remarks are foolish and the minster should have known they could be used in the manner alleged, however, they could easily have been taken out of context as no police/military officer can be expected to stand there and watch as such killing takes place, quite likely against their own friends and community. It is in fact a lot more likely that it was a case of tit for tat attacks, which were expected to happen by members of both communities before the riots, but had probably worsened due to the politically charged environment, it was not necessarily caused by the actions or intentions of just the Muslim League, specially given, I quote from the same source " Acid bombs were manufactured and stored in Hindu-owned factories long before the outbreak. Calcutta's Hindu blacksmiths were mobilised to prepare spearheads and other weapons".

"against Hindus and Sikhs" ; source 1 links to

You will notice this one no longer works, however, I took the time to search and found what, I believe, was the index to the intended page, here. unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be linking to the correct page.

"against Hindus and Sikhs" ; source 8 links to

this source does not any point single out a certain community/organisation (such as the Muslim league) as the instigators of violence against other communities, in fact it states, conversely, that communal rioting took place, I can't see the logic in it being used as a source in the context of the article's wording.

I hope you don't mind my lengthy response .Khokhar (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I explicitly find POV in the article. It is still heavily biased against the muslim masses and their leaders. The fact remains that muslims were minoity in Calcutta in those days of 1946 as still today. And they were backward compared to there hindu neighbours as well.So.....how come the minority only instigated this riot?Is it possible?Al-minar (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that the 1954 judicial report on anti-Ahmedi riots in Pakistan (http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/munir/index.html) notes that the leaders of the anti-Ahmedi movement were arrested when they threatened Direct Action (the exactly same words in Urdu as used in 1946); the arrest of the leaders precipitated the riots. This may help in establishing what Direct Action meant. Arun (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Instigation" continues...
Hi! In your post you admit that "As you pointed out it is sourced and clearly states that the Muslim league directed pre-determined violence towards other religious communities. Before I move on to the sources I just wanted to clear up a couple of points you raised, firstly the word '[Direct action]' doesn't necessarily mean violence 'should' be used and it certainly does not mean 'riot', it is also accepted that the word 'hartal' or 'general strike' could be used just as well and so all three words can, in this instance at least, be considered synonymous or the same"

Yes, I also agree. The clear meaning of Direct Action was not clear to anyone. So, parts of Muslim mobs got ready with arms, and parts of Hindu mob got ready with arms. Both sides were well-prepared and cold blooded killing took place on both sides. (see, Bengal Divided by Joya Chatterjee, pp232, 233). Communal rioting took place in which people of both Hindu and Muslim religions were killed.

You have precisely summarised that, "It is in fact a lot more likely that it was a case of tit for tat attacks, which were expected to happen by members of both communities before the riots, but had probably worsened due to the politically charged environment". True. Tit for tat attacks. Now, where did that "tit" come from. From the ambiguous publicity (pamphlets/speech) of the League. Speech by Nazimuddin, the inflammatory articles in newspapers, ambiguity in terms of what direct action means, and "foolish" remarks by Suhrawardy - these are all instigation. You cannot expect the Chief Minister to say to the mass to go and riot in public. Suhrawardy did not either.

As you have told, regarding Suhrawardy's remark on "restraint" on police, "it would be fair to argue that such remarks are foolish and the minster should have known they could be used in the manner alleged". Yes, such remarks was foolish, and that;s what F.J Burrows (governor of Bengal) also thought. Burrows reported that such remarks were "an open invitation to disorder" to "an uneducated audience" ( page 115, Muslim Societies, Sato Tsugikata)).

On the page 112 of that book, we get a published agenda of the day from the League that does not have any violence in plan. In fact, as I have told in my above post, the meaning of Direct Action was not clear to either all the leaders or the mass.

However, on page 113 of the book, we see that "Reflecting the militant mood of the central leadership, Khwaja Najimuddin, the former premier of Bengal, announced that 'the Muslim population of Bengal know very well what direct action would mean and so we need not bother to give them any lead.' He is also reported to have said that the 'Muslims would not be confined to non-violence.'" "The Muslim National Guard, the voluntary organization of the Muslim League,performed quasi-military drills is several locations in the city" In fact, in page 114, the book says that "a wide range of political vies were afloat and different strategies were being discussed" in early half of the August, including,"heroic sacrifice" "social revolution" "open violence" "tactical restraint"

On page 114, the book says, "Some the Bengali newspapers and pamphlets carried highly inflammatory articles". These speech by Nazimuddin, the inflammatory articles, ambiguity in terms of what direct action means, and "foolish" remarks by Suhrawardy - these are all instigation. On page 233 of Bengal Divided, it says, "Suhrawardy himself much of the responsibility of this blood-letting since he issued an open challenge to the Hindus and was grossly negligent (deliberately or otherwise) in his failure to quell the rioting nce it had broken out." Also implicated were Hindu leaders, who made sure Hindu mobs were well-prepared for retaliation.

On page 119, it also adds that there were quite a few number of Muslim leaders who held more sober views. During the riots, leaders from Muslim League, Congress, Communist Party tried to pacify furious mobs at places.(page 119) So, we see there were pacifist efforts on both sides also.

Another good read is this, where we see preparedness from the both sides. However, this also shows that Chief Minister Suhrawardy obstructed police in controlling riots (this is also mentioned in our wikipedia article, with reference from Rashid, Harun-or (1987). The Foreshadowing of Bangladesh: Bengal Muslim League and Muslim Politics, 1936-1947,. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

So, we see both sides were prepared for violence. But why? because both sides expected violence. And why? Because of the League's (who was in power at that time in Bengal) ambiguous definition of direct action, not controlling/directing mobs, and some League leaders' militant outlook, inflammatory propaganda. Hindu mobs did not START it, Muslims mobs did, thanks to the leaders being there who already paved the path towards the riot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to sum up, we agree that Direct Action does not equate rioting and the latter was a result of other factors already present. It is undeniable that at it led to rioting, but to say, unambiguously, that the general intention of the 'Muslim leagues leadership' was to instigate rioting, as it says in the article, is not balanced. I will also return to the points you raised concerning the word 'instigated'.

It would however be fair to indicate the complexity of the situation (and thus direct the reader to the background section for a clearer understanding) as most of the reasons for the 'riots' were due to already present communal and political tensions rather than to unequivocally suggest it was the leadership's unanimous intention. Something like "The call for direct action (which can be linked to the wikipedia page Direct Action) led to communal violence and rioting down due to already present factors". These factors are already explained in the background section and this can, of course, be expanded slightly to include the argument that 'some' of the Muslim leagues leader's (such as saharwardi) remarks could have been taken out of context or that there was already a sense that violent may ensue and the general community was, to a certain extant (as shown in sources already mentioned concerning the Hindu community already prepared for such a eventuality. The other sources you mentioned, such as the leaflets/newspapers, which I am sure was happening on both sides, can of course also be added.

It is also believed that the extant of the violence was not expected, as it is already said and (sourced) in the background section "In his book The Great Divide, H V Hodson recounted, "The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League's resolution. These meetings and processions passed off — as was manifestly the Central league leaders' intention — without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.

We also agree the words 'against Hindus and Sikhs', in the context of the mentioned sentence are, firstly, not sourced and should not be there anyway as they give the impression that the general Muslim League leadership explicitly asked for the mentioned communities to be targeted. At no point did any leader specifically say a certain religious community 'should be targeted' and so it should really say something like violence took place between communities due to (as mentioned) certain, already present, communal conditions. I understand that the word instigated also has a role to play here and will now return to the points you raised.

You have, for the most past, summed up that the violence was in fact prepared and directed by both sides and that many sources show this. You finished off with the statement:

"So, we see both sides were prepared for violence. But why? because both sides expected violence. And why? Because of the League's (who was in power at that time in Bengal) ambiguous definition of direct action, not controlling/directing mobs, and some League leaders' militant outlook, inflammatory propaganda. Hindu mobs did not START it, Muslims mobs did, thanks to the leaders being there who already paved the path towards the riot"

"because both sides expected violence. And why? Because of the League's (who was in power at that time in Bengal) ambiguous definition of direct action, not controlling/directing mobs, and some League leaders' militant outlook, inflammatory propaganda"

A perceived ambiguity in explaining the word Direct action, which was probably referred to as 'hartal' by the lay people, would not be a fair reason on it's own to assume instigation. As for not controlling/directing mobs, as explained, it would not be reasonable to assume the police/military would stand by and do nothing, what was stated in the source, I quote "The League's rally at Ochterloney Monument on that day was considered as the 'largest ever Muslim assembly'. The Muslim League Chief Minister in his address reportedly assured the audience that the military and police had been 'restrained'", when not taken out of context, it seems quite clear the chief minister's comments were aimed at allowing the protest (as such large gathering are generally not allowed) to continue and should not be construed to mean 'let the violence continue'. The inflammatory propaganda, as already stated, was probably present on both sides and can not be taken as evidence against the Muslim league or it's leaders in general.

You also take a lot of sources from Bengal divided by Joya Chatterji, Though a lot of her work is sourced and clearly well thought out, I feel it is not entirely neutral and some of what is stated is her point of view, one such example being a chapter called and based on 'Hindu unity and Muslim Tyranny', neutral historians generally do not lead you into such pre-conceptions.

You state that "Hindu mobs did not START it, Muslims mobs did"

This seems to be the core of the argument for the Muslim league being responsible for 'instigating', as mentioned in the article, you admit that violence took place on both sides and some was prepared well in advance, however you go on to state that 'Muslim mobs did' start the violence, even IF this was true it does not implicate the Muslim league (as mentioned in the article), but as you have accepted, the Muslim league might have asked for a 'general strike' but they (the Muslim league in general) did not ask for violence.

As for whether 'Muslim mobs did', seeing as some preparations were made well in advance, as acknowledged by many sources including those you posted, and as stated in one of the earlier sources in the article which sates, I quote "Acid bombs were manufactured and stored in Hindu-owned factories long before the outbreak. Calcutta's Hindu blacksmiths were mobilised to prepare spearheads and other weapons". It would be impossible to be certain if Muslims or Hindu's 'started' the violence, for all we know, it could have been a case of a group of Muslims, while peacefully protest marching, being attacked by 'acid bombs' and this could mean 'Hindus STARTED' the violence. However such a claim would be dubious and so it is fair to state both sides had prepared for violence in advance which got terribly out of control. Khokhar (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have requested a copy of Burrows' telegram from British Library. Looks like they have moved the entire site here and the specific link seems to be still broken(Source 4). Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to instigation —

Your claim that who started the riot cannot be ascertain has been disproven by many sources. You are saying that because both sides were prepared for violence, no one can say who started the violence. Which is wrong.

It was Muslim League's strike. For that strike to be successful, entire Calcutta had to shut down. Hindus and Sikhs had the exact opposite view. They believed in "Akhand Bharat" and they were determined to keep their businesses open. Therefore, the violence was started by Muslim League cadres trying to enforce the strike. If Muslim League was not looking for violence, Muslim parts of Calcutta would have total completely shut down and in non-muslim parts life would have been like any other day. At the end of the day both sides would have gone home happy as a clam. But because any open business may have been construded as a failure of the strike, Muslim League sent enforcers to close shops. So Muslim League is culpable of starting the violence.

This claim has been backed by citations provided.

I cannot go into more detail until May, 8, because right now time is short for me. If we cannot resolve it here, we can go to dispute resolution. Sumanch (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliable and neutral sources to back this, I have commented in detail on every aspect you have mentioned with sources, almost all the sources in the section in question are either not present, unspecific or unreliable. Khokhar (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, if you can not currently provide sources due to time constraints, we can take a break and leave the matter for a short period as you may also be waiting for the response from the British library. I am sure we can work out a mutually acceptable and balanced view (please read the first few paragraphs of my last post), I have nothing against dispute resolution but it should only be considered as a last resort. Khokhar (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Response from British Library
Dear Sumanch Thank you for your message. The link in question, about the Calcutta riots in the summer of 1946, appears no longer to work, bringing up part of the text of an entirely different document: colleagues are investigating the matter amd we hope to be able to restore it as soon as possible. However, as the site does provide the precise reference (i.e. folios 95 - 107 of the volume @ shelfmark L/PJ/8/655), you should easily be able to place an order for a copy with our Imaging Services, bearing in mind that payment must be in £ sterling. Please see the information and links @ http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/atyourdesk/imaging/imaginghome.html. The cost is likely to be £27.10. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely, Hedley Sutton APAC Reference Services Tel.: +44 (0)207 412 7865

"Muslim League Instigated" continued 2
The link to the British Library's 'Direct Action Day' day source is now working correctly

I have read through it and found it to contain, for the most part, material already discussed and nothing to categorically back the claims made against the Muslim league, in fact it agrees with almost everything I have already stated. Here's some of what is stated:

A copy of a secret report written on 22 August 1946 to the Viceroy Lord Wavell, from Sir Frederick John Burrows, concerning the Calcutta riots.

(I have added the narratives)

Discussing the main underlying causes:

"The setting. Omitting the more remote causes of the riots - the long struggle for power between Hindus and Muslims, in which Calcutta is a focal point, the weakening of our authority which is an inevitable consequence of our impending departure, the dislocation of the normal life of Calcutta by war and famine, and the presence of a Muslim Ministry in a predominantly Hindu city"

Burrows views on Suhrawardy, and the decision to call a public holiday:

"If shops and markets had been generally open, I believe that there would have been even more looting and murder than there was; the holiday gave the peaceable citizens the chance of staying at home. There was an adjournment motion in the Legislative Council on August -15th about the declaration of a holiday. The Chief Minister, defending the decision, said that though the Muslims would observe the day peacefully and in a disciplined manner, there was always a danger of conflict arising; Congressmen had in the past enforced hartals by violence, and Muslims might be tempted to follow their example, which in the present political atmosphere was bound to five rise to communal conflict. It was to minimize the risk of such conflicts that he had declared a holiday."

Burrows views on instigation:

"4. As regards the probabilities of trouble and its possible extent, we found it extremely difficult to arrive at any confident appreciation in advance. Outwardly both major parties and also the independent Schedule Caste leaders, who had announced their intention to support the Muslim protest, had emphasised the necessity of keeping the peace. On the other hand the atmosphere was admittedly explosive and we realised"

Attempts to stop the violence:

"The situation deteriorated during the forenoon and at 2.40 p.m. the Chief Secretary rang up my Secretary to say that the position had become so serious that he supported the request of the Commissioner of Police that the Army should be called in at once in aid of the civil power. ...... Ten minutes later the Commissioner of Police reported that the Chief Minister had already agreed to the calling in of troops"

Clearly none of the sources have backed the allegations made regarding the Muslim league's involvement or "instigation" whether in favour of violence or against any specific communities. I see no reason why the allegations in the articles' main heading should be present, I have already made suggestions regarding how the article can be balanced and fair, and await input or any objections before making the changes. Regarding dispute resolution, I can not see any tangible reason for this matter to be referred as there are no reliable sources or evidence to back the disputed section's allegations, however if both sides are not satisfied, as a last resort that option is always there. Khokhar (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes discussed and left the reasons for the violence, which were clearly complicated, to be explained in a balanced manner in later sections, I have also left the neutrality tag, temporarily, in case further discussions are required.Khokhar (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag removed.Khokhar (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The underlying issue is clear. Muslims were the kings of major part of India when British arrived. When British were about to leave, Muslims realised that they will be numerical minority in a democracy in united India and may not get political power. So their plan was to cut out all Muslim dominated areas and form a new muslim country.

It was definitely a good idea to separate religion based communities. History has proven this, if one notes that majority of all current fightings in world originated from quarrel between two religions in same country. Example Sudan, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Phillipines, Bosnia, Chechnya and many more. If one assumes Communism itself is a religion ( sort of a null religion ) then the percentage increses further. Only minority cases of todays hostility have same religion on both sides, the main issues being race or caste.

Nevertheless, Indian Congress opposed division of India because the settlements were mixed and it was difficult to identify religion based territories and draw borders. To force the issue on Congress, few Muslims got an idea of cleansing Hindus from muslim pockets so that the border lines are clearely visible.

The then Bengal was Muslim majority state, having muslim dominated administration. The cleansing accidentally started here with few incidents of attacking Hindus, but Calcutta being Hindu majority town, the retaliation was prompt. This started a chain reaction in other areas parts of country, that eventually convinced the Congress that it is better to divide the country than kill each other. Thus Pakistan was formed.

Now we know that "Religion is the biggest man killer". Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.68.100 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion based political division
Pakistan, Israel and Bosnia are not the only examples of political divisions based on religion. Why did East Timor opted for staying out of Indonesia? The answer is very simple, religion as it had a christian populace unlike muslim majority in rest of Indonesia. So creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion was inevitable and thus it was rightly accepted by Congress.Direct Action Day was hence a necessary but bitter prelude of such didvision of India.Naved77 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

CALCUTTA MAJORITY VICTIMS WERE MUSLIMS
I have added new information and the FACT that "MUSLIM DEFEAT IN CALCUTTA WHERE THE MAJORITY OF VICTIMS WERE MUSLIMS EVEN THOUGH THE RIOT WAS STARTED BY MUSLIMS WAS THE REASON WHY MUSLIMS STARTED RIOTING IN EAST BENGAL WHERE THEY FEEL SAFE AS THEY WERE IN MAJORITY".

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=b6NYLzMC3ZIC&pg=PA26&dq=1946+calcutta+riots+muslims+hindu+retaliation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wb8GUNSMLMrtrQfx0ri3Bg&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=1946%20calcutta%20riots%20muslims%20hindu%20retaliation&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=OTMy0B9OZjAC&pg=PA72&dq=1946+calcutta+riots+Hindus+Kill+muslims+retaliation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WcEGUOnDNInJrQeyzPCzBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=1946%20calcutta%20riots%20Hindus%20Kill%20muslims%20retaliation&f=false

Therefore dont confuse Calcutta Riots with naoghali riots, the DEFEAT IN CALCUTTA RIOTS forced Muslim to riot against Hindu in a place in east bengal where hindu were less than 15% and once again Hindu retaliated in Bihar(which saw the biggest massacre of any community in british india)122.161.70.126 (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=direct+action+day+hindu+sikh+retaliate&btnG=#hl=en&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=of+genocide+of+the+Hindus+in+retaliation+of+the+Great+Calcutta+Killing+on+the+four+days+since+the+Direct+Action+Day+on+16+August+1946.&oq=of+genocide+of+the+Hindus+in+retaliation+of+the+Great+Calcutta+Killing+on+the+four+days+since+the+Direct+Action+Day+on+16+August+1946.&gs_l=serp.3...108517.108517.0.108731.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.1...1c.Xg2CQSlOeSE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=bc2404c6dd39d4c5&biw=1280&bih=629

Here is the source from well known Historian AL BASHAM who clearly puts that "DEFEAT OF MUSLIMS IN CALCUTTA RIOTS SPARKED ANTI HINDU RIOTS IN EAST BENGAL WHERE MUSLIMS FORMED 83% OF POPULATION".

This means though the calcutta riots were started by Muslims, Hindu and Sikhs retaliated in Calcutta with such revenge that Bengal Muslim league govt was not able to defend muslims and hence to take revenge shift the anti hindu riots to east bengal but "AS HINDU ALWAYS TAKE REVENGE BE IT MUGHALS OR DURRANI WE DESTROY ALL THE MUSLIM EMPIRES OF INDIA,PAKISTAN,BANGLADESH AND AFGHANISTAN, BIHARI HINDUS SHOWED BENGALI MUSLIMS HOW TO KILL". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.6.179 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

MUSLIM WOMEN NOT RAPED
There is no documented evidence of hindus raping muslim women while evidence is present to the contrary. It seemaThese things are mentioned in the article as a part of a malicious propaganda.These statements which are unreferenced should be immediately removed.Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed it. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Still some original research remains in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.201.141 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)