Talk:Muslim League's Direct Action Day

Contradiction
This article appears to contradict itself in relation to the causes of the riots.

In the intro to the Causes and Preludes section the author states categorically that " [t] he riots, by Hindu Extremists hailing from the Congress and Mahasabha, 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." and backs this up with a statment from the Statesman newspaper (actually a reference to a book which presumbly cites a statement from that paper - a date for the paper would be better) which does indeed suggest this as a cause.

However, in the next section he presents direct primary evidence which states the exact opposite: "It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there." (Lord Wavell writing to Pethick Lawrence).

Further, in the section Involvement of the Muslim League Government, the author states, without citation, that "In fact evidence to the contrary was found of Congress' involvement in the rioting". There is no evidence to back this up in the succedding section and in fact the next paragraph - which would be expected to support the author's statement - merely repeats the fact that Wavell could find no evidence of Muslim involvement (I have removed excessive use of the same quotes from the article) and is in fact the only evidence presented in support of this heading (the other quote being a press release from before the riots)

This is an interesting topic, but it needs more cleaning up than that I have just done, and the POV still appears to give undue weighting to one side over the other. StuartDouglas 10:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was a POV fork of Direct Action Day. it has been redirected. Kjartan8 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)