China slammed India FM's claims

[gpit]

If hangings, killings and Violence is directly proportional to opium then dictator Communism is the champion of using opium on its people

After all no one can match the brutality of Chicoms ..
From Mao's Regime to present leadership

The Epoch Times | Epoch Times Commentaries on the Communist Party - Part 7

You can only referece Epoch or 大妓院 (the Great Brothel).

Let me remind you that as a part of the world murder capital, some people in AP may feel well justified to go China for a safer place.

rediff.com: India is the murder capital of the world

A survey by the National Crime Records Bureau for the year 2006 has said that India witnessed 32,719 murders -- roughly three people killed every hour -- placing it in the top of the list of countries with the highest number of murders. ...

Sounds like your democracy is more brutal than "ChiCom".

More brutal is the opium effect that blinds your eyes to your own "murder capital of the world" problem now and feel delighted at others mistakes many decades ago that have been maliciously exaggerated by the people's enemies.

 

[gpit]

Go back to the topic.

In fact, China has never declared Zang Nan (AP) is not a part of China regardless of whatever agreement.

 

[Vinod2070]

gpit, I think you can do better than your attempts here.

The murders in India could be the highest, not the murder rate. I thought even you could make that out very easily.

Again it is a fact that these crimes can not be compared to the 50-60 million deaths that were caused by the useless policies of the CCP. It was too high a price paid by the Chinese brothers. This price does not justify achieving anything in the world.

I know that China has unfortunately seen some of the most massive and macabre loss of human life in recent and medieval history. It is something that we need to empathize as fellow human beings rather than trying to score points on this count.

But making the CCP accountable for what happened in their watch is definitely in order.

 

[Logic note]

You can only referece Epoch or 大妓院 (the Great Brothel).

Let me remind you that as a part of the world murder capital, some people in AP may feel well justified to go China for a safer place.

rediff.com: India is the murder capital of the world


Sounds like your democracy is more brutal than "ChiCom".

More brutal is the opium effect that blinds your eyes to your own "murder capital of the world" problem now and feel delighted at others mistakes many decades ago that have been maliciously exaggerated by the people's enemies.

Oh yes G pit you are tight

Chinese government can only be compared with criminals of India
but as data shows chinese government is smarter in killing

 

[Vinod2070]

The idea behind Pakistan was exactly that which Jinnah articulated, and it was one that was for equality for all, irrespective of faith or ethnicity. In that context his opinion of how the partition shoudl proceed was valid.

Your argument against the undivided provinces becoming part of Pakistan is a retrospective one, based on events that could not have been foreseen at the time, and therefore is not a very valid one. Jinnah's own moderate, some woudl say secular, positions are well known. His arguments towards equality for all are well known, as is his strong early support for creating a united nation. All of that lends credence to his initial arguments for the united provinces becoming part of Pakistan.

I am not contesting that Jinnah may have been a secular person in his personal life. Or that he had a vision of Pakistan that matches your signature. I need to study more about him to find out.

What I said was that dividing India based on religion and then trying to vacate the same argument for the two provinces where Non-Muslims were in minority by a small percentage was disingenuous. It may not be to you, it was to many people and definitely to the minorities of the said provinces. Why would Jinnah not care for their views on such an important matter?

You have not given any argument on this score. Just his own personal vision does not make this argument valid.

It was meant to be an outrageous comment, and therefore unbelievable. On the other hand, you quite sincerely made the argument that Jinnah would act as a power hungry autocrat, and not hold a plebiscite, despite the fact that all evidence points to the contrary. That I find far more offensive than an obviously untrue caricature meant to illustrate how flawed I considered your opinion to be.

I trust you and would still avoid such outrageous comments.

We are discussing Pakistan and the ideals behind it as they were then, not after 1947, not after 1971, and not now, when the ideas for united Punjab and Bengal becoming Pakistan were articulated. Because nations continuously evolve, what happened in the subsequent years cannot be used as an argument against that demand, unless you can prove that Jinnah supported the direction Pakistan ended up going in. The reality of Pakistan then was therefore that which Jinnah articulated, as I explained above.

It was at best Mr. Jinnah's vision and not reality. Anyway my question about what Mr. Jinnah did to achieve the vision practically and why the minorities were almost totally wiped out under his watch is still unanswered.

May be he was a great visionary but not someone who could convert the vision into ground reality!

Granted he had a small time but many things did happen when he was alive that don't inspire confidence. Knowing that he had a small time, he should have groomed leadership that could execute on his vision.

Can we truthfully say that it was a failure on his part?

The movement led by Jinnah was entirely pacifist and principled. It is a testament to the magnitude of his character and intellect that he was able to accomplish the creation of a nation through pure intellectual and political action. It was certain people and violent groups, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh, who caused the violence, not the partition, and not Jinnah.

Why do I blame these violent mobs and groups? Because they should have respected the will of the people seeking their destiny as part of Pakistan. To shift the blame onto partition is to attempt to justify their acts and excuse them, a travesty.

Direct action does not automatically involve violence - it implies political protest, and was also advocated by martin Luther King. I am not sure why you would twist the meaning to imply violence.

Just read up on the great Calcutta killings on the Direct Action day. Also how it was organized by the Muslim league government of Bengal.

Also the kind of outrageous statements that were made by the league ministers (advocating genocides of kaffirs). I saw the excerpts in a recent book by a Pakistani author. It was a refreshingly honest book. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the author. This happened under Mr. Jinnah's nose. Are we to believe that it happened without his knowledge or blessings?

 

[Vinod2070]

India until 1947 was a region, hence equating Indians with Asians (before 1947) is completely justified, as is referring to them by the term 'South Asians'. Obviously after 1947, the creation of the Republic of India meant that "Indian" would be used to refer to a nationality, rather than residents of a region.

Most of those arguments are on open threads, and I disagree with your contention, by just lumping them into a list here, that they are 'superficial'. Since they are on their own threads, feel free to counter them there, if you can. I feel I have justified almost all of them, and asking for empirical evidence to back up ludicrous claims such as the ones you have made is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise you are merely bandying about lies and half truths, like the one I posted about Gandhi.

Don't you think it should be left to Indians to define whether India was a region or a nation?

What makes you think you can better define India than Indians. Heck, I have repeatedly mentioned without any response from you that even Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Iqbal never questioned the nationhood of India.

What has changed for you to make this outrageously absurd claim? What do you know that Iqbal didn't know?

Why did he sing: "Saare jahan se achha Hindustan hamara" and not "Saare jahan se achha Asia hamara"?

Have you ever seen someone writing such prose about his "region"?

Did all those freedom fighters that gave their lives do it for their provinces or regions or the freedom of India?

Again, you mentioned in the other thread about there being "blood" on the hands of certain other countries. There surely is blood on Pakistan's hands too in Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Just by questioning the volume of blood, the reality won't go away. It was massive, it was ruthless. There is no excuse.

I compiled this list with some effort because you wanted to list the specific arguments where I noticed the "superficial" arguments. All of them are indeed being discussed in their threads and all have a common "thread" running under them, that of superficiality in some measure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am not contesting that Jinnah may have been a secular person in his personal life. Or that he had a vision of Pakistan that matches your signature. I need to study more about him to find out.

What I said was that dividing India based on religion and then trying to vacate the same argument for the two provinces where Non-Muslims were in minority by a small percentage was disingenuous. It may not be to you, it was to many people and definitely to the minorities of the said provinces. Why would Jinnah not care for their views on such an important matter?

You have not given any argument on this score. Just his own personal vision does not make this argument valid.

Jinnah's argument was based on the premise that a minority, Muslims, would not get a fair deal in a united India. Implicit in that is the view then that the nation he was seeking to create would do that which its people could not get in a united India - equality and fair treatment for all. Therefore it was not a disingenuous argument at all. And it was valid since ethnically and culturally, both united Punjab and Bengal would have been incorporated seamlessly into Pakistan.

In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps it was a bad idea not to go in that direction, since much of the violence that arose was because families were uprooted in the Muslim and non-Muslim parts of each province as the two were divided. Kashmir would really not have been an issue, since India would not have had access to it, and we woudl not have gone through the acrimony and hostility of the last 60 odd years.

It was at best Mr. Jinnah's vision and not reality. Anyway my question about what Mr. Jinnah did to achieve the vision practically and why the minorities were almost totally wiped out under his watch is still unanswered.

May be he was a great visionary but not someone who could convert the vision into ground reality!

Granted he had a small time but many things did happen when he was alive that don't inspire confidence. Knowing that he had a small time, he should have groomed leadership that could execute on his vision.

Can we truthfully say that it was a failure on his part?

The usage of the word 'vision' is accurate - and it was that vision alone, as the overwhelmingly popular and strong leader of the ML (with the people) that woudl have defined Pakistan.

He did convert vision into reality, Pakistan is proof of that! And his vision woudl have been stamped on the direction of Pakistan's evolution, had he been able to live long enough, which sadly he did not.

Just read up on the great Calcutta killings on the Direct Action day. Also how it was organized by the Muslim league government of Bengal.

Also the kind of outrageous statements that were made by the league ministers (advocating genocides of kaffirs). I saw the excerpts in a recent book by a Pakistani author. It was a refreshingly honest book. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the author. This happened under Mr. Jinnah's nose. Are we to believe that it happened without his knowledge or blessings?

I have read up on the acts of Direct action day, and from most neutral accounts it appears that both sides had planned in advance for the communal violence. Both sides hated the opposing position "pro-Pakistan and anti-Pakistan". Shops were marked by each community to indicate which side they belonged to before the rioting, weapons and food supplies were accumulated by both sides - this was not some spontaneous assault by one community, it was a careful campaign of hatred orchestrated by both sides.

Add in the apathy of the British officials in charge in responding to the threat quickly, and you had a recipe for disaster.

Jinnah warned for the potential of violence were the voices of the people demanding their nation, who supported his party and position not heard, he did not advocate going out and murdering people. I cannot agree with your 'guilt by association', that because some leaders made those alleged comments of 'genocide of Kaffirs', that Jinnah advocated them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Don't you think it should be left to Indians to define whether India was a region or a nation?

What makes you think you can better define India than Indians. Heck, I have repeatedly mentioned without any response from you that even Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Iqbal never questioned the nationhood of India.

What has changed for you to make this outrageously absurd claim? What do you know that Iqbal didn't know?

Why did he sing: "Saare jahan se achha Hindustan hamara" and not "Saare jahan se achha Asia hamara"?

Have you ever seen someone writing such prose about his "region"?

Did all those freedom fighters that gave their lives do it for their provinces or regions or the freedom of India?

Again, you mentioned in the other thread about there being "blood" on the hands of certain other countries. There surely is blood on Pakistan's hands too in Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Just by questioning the volume of blood, the reality won't go away. It was massive, it was ruthless. There is no excuse.

I compiled this list with some effort because you wanted to list the specific arguments where I noticed the "superficial" arguments. All of them are indeed being discussed in their threads and all have a common "thread" running under them, that of superficiality in some measure.

Indians only exist in the Republic of India now - and the people of the region did indeed define whether India was a region or nation - they defined it as a region by creating Pakistan. That was the people's choice.

Some leaders in Europe may even now view Europe as a 'United Nation'. The vision of a few individuals does not change Europe into a nation however, it does not change the reality of it being comprised of many nations and many peoples - that is a decision for the people to make. Perhaps some day they may indeed agree to form a single nation they owe allegiance to, or they may not.

Similarly, the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh made their choice, and the peoples will is what is important.

I never said there wasn't blood on Pakistan's hands - I have time and time stated that atrocities were indeed committed by Pakistani troops, that there was a breakdown in discipline. But I have also pointed out that the numbers of those killed are far lower than you claim, that there is no evidence that the magnitude of those killed or raped comes even close to the numbers you claim.

I have also pointed out that atrocities were committed by both sides, by Indian sponsored and trained groups as well as Pakistanis. I have argued, and shown conclusively, that India deliberately destabilized Pakistan starting as early as 1968, that it helped create the environment of hate and violence.

So indeed, there is blood on Pakistan's hands from 1971, but there is also blood on India's hands from 1971.

The same with Afghanistan - if we supported the Taliban, India supported the Northern Alliance warlords - blood on both sides. However, I did not raise the issue of nations historically interfering in other nations , S-2 did. I merely pointed out that the US has no room to criticize Pakistan on that count given its history on intervention in other nations, resulting in far more bloodshed. My argument was solely based on US policy in Afghanistan post 2001, and how it alienated Pakistan and undermined its security.

Again, most arguments on that list are being carried out on open threads, and by merely regurgitating 'superficiality' repeatedly, you cannot render my arguments so. If my arguments are superficial, then you should be able to show that in the relevant thread. It is disingenuous to leave detailed discussions already being carried out, go elsewhere, list them, and then just state they are 'superficial'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps it was a bad idea not to go in that direction, since much of the violence that arose was because families were uprooted in the Muslim and non-Muslim parts of each province as the two were divided. Kashmir would really not have been an issue, since India would not have had access to it, and we woudl not have gone through the acrimony and hostility of the last 60 odd years.

One correction there - not a good idea in Bengal, given the history of communal violence there.

 

[Vinod2070]

Jinnah's argument was based on the premise that a minority, Muslims, would not get a fair deal in a united India. Implicit in that is the view then that the nation he was seeking to create would do that which its people could not get in a united India - equality and fair treatment for all. Therefore it was not a disingenuous argument at all. And it was valid since ethnically and culturally, both united Punjab and Bengal would have been incorporated seamlessly into Pakistan.

In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps it was a bad idea not to go in that direction, since much of the violence that arose was because families were uprooted in the Muslim and non-Muslim parts of each province as the two were divided. Kashmir would really not have been an issue, since India would not have had access to it, and we woudl not have gone through the acrimony and hostility of the last 60 odd years.

The original question was whether the minorities in those provinces had a say in this matter or not?

I see no account where their wish was a factor in Mr. Jinnah's calculus.

The partition was not about ethnicity or culture! It was about religion. So why apply double standards for these provinces?

There would be no uprooting in case there was no partition!

The usage of the word 'vision' is accurate - and it was that vision alone, as the overwhelmingly popular and strong leader of the ML (with the people) that woudl have defined Pakistan.

He did convert vision into reality, Pakistan is proof of that! And his vision woudl have been stamped on the direction of Pakistan's evolution, had he been able to live long enough, which sadly he did not.

Was Pakistan the only vision or a Pakistan that stood to his ideals? Has that been achieved?

Remember, a visionary leader also incubates and grooms a lot many others who can carry the vision forward and convert it into reality.

I have read up on the acts of Direct action day, and from most neutral accounts it appears that both sides had planned in advance for the communal violence. Both sides hated the opposing position "pro-Pakistan and anti-Pakistan". Shops were marked by each community to indicate which side they belonged to before the rioting, weapons and food supplies were accumulated by both sides - this was not some spontaneous assault by one community, it was a careful campaign of hatred orchestrated by both sides.

Add in the apathy of the British officials in charge in responding to the threat quickly, and you had a recipe for disaster.

Jinnah warned for the potential of violence were the voices of the people demanding their nation, who supported his party and position not heard, he did not advocate going out and murdering people. I cannot agree with your 'guilt by association', that because some leaders made those alleged comments of 'genocide of Kaffirs', that Jinnah advocated them.

On the direct action day, the violence was one sided. The reprisals happened later on.

I would like to know what action Mr. Jinnah took against the league perpetrators of those killings and the ministers who made those statements. I know that Mr. Suwahardy who was a principal player in those killings went on to become the PM of Pakistan!

Its not about "guilt by association". Its about what was done by Mr. Jinnah to prevent those happenings. Else why should not it be assumed that the actions had the sanction and the blessings at the highest level?

 

[Vinod2070]

Indians only exist in the Republic of India now - and the people of the region did indeed define whether India was a region or nation - they defined it as a region by creating Pakistan. That was the people's choice.

Some leaders in Europe may even now view Europe as a 'United Nation'. The vision of a few individuals does not change Europe into a nation however, it does not change the reality of it being comprised of many nations and many peoples - that is a decision for the people to make. Perhaps some day they may indeed agree to form a single nation they owe allegiance to, or they may not.

Similarly, the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh made their choice, and the peoples will is what is important.

I never said there wasn't blood on Pakistan's hands - I have time and time stated that atrocities were indeed committed by Pakistani troops, that there was a breakdown in discipline. But I have also pointed out that the numbers of those killed are far lower than you claim, that there is no evidence that the magnitude of those killed or raped comes even close to the numbers you claim.

I have also pointed out that atrocities were committed by both sides, by Indian sponsored and trained groups as well as Pakistanis. I have argued, and shown conclusively, that India deliberately destabilized Pakistan starting as early as 1968, that it helped create the environment of hate and violence.

So indeed, there is blood on Pakistan's hands from 1971, but there is also blood on India's hands from 1971.

The same with Afghanistan - if we supported the Taliban, India supported the Northern Alliance warlords - blood on both sides. However, I did not raise the issue of nations historically interfering in other nations , S-2 did. I merely pointed out that the US has no room to criticize Pakistan on that count given its history on intervention in other nations, resulting in far more bloodshed. My argument was solely based on US policy in Afghanistan post 2001, and how it alienated Pakistan and undermined its security.

The more important of my points remain unanswered.

What is it that you know that Mr. Jinnah and Iqbal didn't know?

Again, most arguments on that list are being carried out on open threads, and by merely regurgitating 'superficiality' repeatedly, you cannot render my arguments so. If my arguments are superficial, then you should be able to show that in the relevant thread. It is disingenuous to leave detailed discussions already being carried out, go elsewhere, list them, and then just state they are 'superficial'.

Well, you asked for the list and you got it.

I agree that the topics can be discussed in their threads.

 

[Vinod2070]

One correction there - not a good idea in Bengal, given the history of communal violence there.

The violence levels were higher in Punjab.

There was no way millions of those minorities were going to be forced into a newly created nation that was created breaking their own and whose ideology they did not agree with.

The violence would have been much more in that case.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The original question was whether the minorities in those provinces had a say in this matter or not?

I see no account where their wish was a factor in Mr. Jinnah's calculus.

The partition was not about ethnicity or culture! It was about religion. So why apply double standards for these provinces?

There would be no uprooting in case there was no partition!

It wasn't flawed because the partition had to be done on the basis of some 'administrative unit' - this 'administrative unit' ended up being the 'district' (with some other conditions like contiguity etc.), but given the cultural and ethnic connections, it wasn't out of place to suggest that the unit for the basis of partition be the province.

But like I said, it was not a good idea in Bengal, given the history.

The majority of the violence in Punjab I thought was after the partition award had been announced?

Was Pakistan the only vision or a Pakistan that stood to his ideals? Has that been achieved?

Remember, a visionary leader also incubates and grooms a lot many others who can carry the vision forward and convert it into reality.

The vision was realizing a nation for Muslims.

Whether his vision for the ideals Pakistan would adopt, and the sort of state it woudl become, we cannot say yet, for Pakistan is still a work in progress, still evolving, as is India. We cannot say that Jinnah's vision for Pakistan has failed until Pakistan herself is no more.

On the direct action day, the violence was one sided. The reprisals happened later on.

I would like to know what action Mr. Jinnah took against the league perpetrators of those killings and the ministers who made those statements. I know that Mr. Suwahardy who was a principal player in those killings went on to become the PM of Pakistan!

Its not about "guilt by association". Its about what was done by Mr. Jinnah to prevent those happenings. Else why should not it be assumed that the actions had the sanction and the blessings at the highest level?

That is not what I have read. Weapons and food stores were stockpiled by both sides - that could only happen if both sides were anticipating the violence and preparing for it. And both sides instigated each other in various ways.

What action did Nehru take against the Hindu and Sikh perpetrators?

Was Suhrawardy convicted of these alleged crimes in an independent and neutral court of law during Jinnah's lifetime? What did Jinnah know of what transpired in Bengal, in terms of guilt? You do realize that given the hostility and mistrust between the Congress and the league, and between Hindu's and Muslims, each side would have trusted what their own leadership and supporters told them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The more important of my points remain unanswered.

What is it that you know that Mr. Jinnah and Iqbal didn't know?

It doesn't matter - those opinions changed, and it is their views on Pakistan that aroused the people and it is Pakistan that the people supported.

I agree that the topics can be discussed in their threads.

We agree on something then.

 

[Vinod2070]

It wasn't flawed because the partition had to be done on the basis of some 'administrative unit' - this 'administrative unit' ended up being the 'district' (with some other conditions like contiguity etc.), but given the cultural and ethnic connections, it wasn't out of place to suggest that the unit for the basis of partition be the province.

But like I said, it was not a good idea in Bengal, given the history.

The majority of the violence in Punjab I thought was after the partition award had been announced?

Well it was a case of trying to maximize the gains. So in that sense it was not out of place for him to demand what he did demand. The discussion is about whether it was what the people of the provinces also wanted. From all accounts that was not the case.

The majority of violence in Punjab did occur after the partition award was announced but it was a fire that was waiting to be ignited. A unified Punjab won't contain that fire, actually it would have worsened it. The passions of the people were far higher, the bestiality far greater in Punjab. On both sides.

The vision was realizing a nation for Muslims.

Whether his vision for the ideals Pakistan would adopt, and the sort of state it woudl become, we cannot say yet, for Pakistan is still a work in progress, still evolving, as is India. We cannot say that Jinnah's vision for Pakistan has failed until Pakistan herself is no more.

Agree with that. Let's not write premature obituaries here. I would be truly happy if that vision is achieved for Pakistan as also the ideal vision for India that we have.

That is not what I have read. Weapons and food stores were stockpiled by both sides - that could only happen if both sides were anticipating the violence and preparing for it. And both sides instigated each other in various ways.

What action did Nehru take against the Hindu and Sikh perpetrators?

Was Suhrawardy convicted of these alleged crimes in an independent and neutral court of law during Jinnah's lifetime? What did Jinnah know of what transpired in Bengal, in terms of guilt? You do realize that given the hostility and mistrust between the Congress and the league, and between Hindu's and Muslims, each side would have trusted what their own leadership and supporters told them.

AM, again I agree that there were atrocities on both sides during partition. Right now the discussion was only about the direct action day violence.

A quote from your favorite site:

Following Jinnah's declaration of 16 August as the Direct Action Day, the Muslim League Chief Minister of Bengal, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, declared a public holiday on that day.[1][16] Bengal Congress protested against the declaration of public holiday, arguing that a holiday would enable 'the idle folks' to successfully enforce hartals in areas where the Muslim League leadership was uncertain. Congress accused the League government for "indulging in communal policies' for narrow goal".[17] However, the League went ahead with the declaration, and Muslim newspapers published the program for the day.

The Star of India, an influential local Muslim newspaper, published detailed programme for the day. Calling it a Jehad, the programme called for complete hartal and general strike in all spheres of civic, commercial and industrial life except essential services. The notice proclaimed that processions would start from multiple parts of Calcutta, Howrah, Hooghly, Metiabruz and 24 Parganas, and would converge at the foot of the Ochterlony Monument (now known as Shaheed Minar) where a joint mass rally presided over by Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy would be held. The Muslim League branches were advised to depute three workers in every mosque in every ward to explain the League's action plan before Juma prayers and to report to the district headquarters about arrangements. Moreover, special prayer were arranged in every mosque on Friday after Juma prayers for the freedom of Muslim India, the Islamic world and the peoples of India and the East in general.[18]

The notice drew divine inspiration from the Quran, emphasizing on the coincidence of Direct Action Day with the holy month of Ramzaan, claiming that the upcoming protests were an allegory of Prophet Muhammad's conflict with heathenism and subsequent conquest of Mecca and establishment the kingdom of Heaven in Arabia. It appealed all Muslims to make the day a success by securing moral and physical purge of the nation.[18]

On the other hand, Hindu public opinion was mobilised around the Akhand Hindusthan (United India) slogan.[19] The Congress leaders in Bengal were not necessarily Hindu communalists. But since most of the party's support came from Hindus, a section of the Congressmen imbibed a strong sense of Hindu identity, especially in view of the perceived threat from the Pakistan movement.[8] Such mobilisation along communal lines was partly successful due to a concerted propaganda campaign which resulted in a 'legitimization of communal solidarities'.[8]

After his visits to neighborhoods (Mahallas), Suhrawardy claimed that he believed and found the Muslims peaceful and therefore had made arrangements so that the Police and the Military would not interfere with day's working plans.[4] Muslim League Volunteer Corps in Calcutta, however, took that comment of Suhrawardy to indicate that they were free to riot.[9] On the other hand, following the protests against the British after INA trials, the British administration decided to give more importance to protests against the government, rather than management of communal violence within the Indian populace, according to their "Emergency Action Scheme".[4] Frederick Burrows, the Governor of Bengal, rationalized the authorisation of the declaration of "public holiday" in his report to Lord Wavell —
“ ...many of the mischief-makers were people who would have had idle hands anyhow. 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...

Direct Action Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is Wiki, so feel free to rubbish it if you want. It seems to be extensively referenced though.