The article reassesses the August 1946 Great Kolkata Riots, contending that a Muslim League call for a peaceful Direct Action Day hartal in support of Pakistan was overtaken by communal violence fueled by inflammatory rhetoric, barricades, and attacks on Muslim processions and neighborhoods.

Drawing on Francis Tuker’s eyewitness memoir, Abul Hashim’s account, Intelligence Branch reports, and personal testimonies, it describes Hindu and Sikh mobs targeting Muslims—including Congress members—and cites claims that roughly four-fifths of the victims were Muslim.

It argues that H.S. Suhrawardy’s holiday declaration and requests for military aid have been overemphasized, while Muslim experiences of displacement, trauma, and occasional protection by neighbors remain underrepresented in mainstream accounts.

The Great Kolkata Riots of August 1946 remain one of the most contested and emotionally charged episodes in the modern history of Bengal. For Bengali-speaking people on both sides of today’s border, the events of Direct Action Day (August 14, 1946) have long constituted a historical puzzle: how a day announced as a peaceful political demonstration by minority Muslims in Calcutta — intended to express their desire for Pakistan and their fear of becoming second or thirdclass citizens in a Hindu-majority India — could so quickly descend into one of the bloodiest communal riots of late colonial India.

On August 4, 1946, a conference of Muslim League representatives was held at Zakaria Street, Calcutta, to consider the program for Direct Action Day. It was later elaborated and circulated through local newspapers, pamphlets, and posters. The League President gave orders to observe the day in a peaceful manner to show support for the League’s decisions, regarding the withdrawal of acceptance of Cabinet Mission proposals and the policy of attaining Pakistan.10 The Calcutta District Muslim League called for a “complete hartal and general strike in all spheres of civic, commercial and industrial life,” except in emergency services.

Non-Muslims were also called upon to join hands with Muslims in their fight for Pakistan. A mass procession and a meeting were organized at the Ochterlony Monument and H.S. Suhrawardy, the then Prime Minister of Bengal, was scheduled to preside over it. Muslims were asked to congregate in Maidan to display their solidarity and united strength.

A recent Facebook post attributed a partisan account of the riots to Jyoti Basu, the long-serving Communist leader of West Bengal. Yet, as I noted after listening to the audio version read by Ashim Kumar Pal, such narratives often present only one side of the story, omitting the Muslim experience entirely. This omission is not trivial. As Lt. General Sir Francis Tuker, General Officer Commanding Eastern Command, an eyewitness to the sad event, observed in While Memory Serves, “One great reality of Indian politics has for years been communalism. But unfortunately, the Congress Party hid it from the world, with the inevitable result that India today is decisively parted into at least two nations.”

Tuker’s memoir is indispensable for anyone seeking a balanced understanding of the riots. He describes how, in the days leading up to Direct Action Day, “biased, perverted and inflammatory” articles appeared in both Hindu and Muslim newspapers, while political leaders on all sides indulged in irresponsible rhetoric. His assessment is blunt: goondas — Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim — were responsible for much of the mayhem, but certain political leaders helped create the conditions for violence. He singles out Congress leader Kiran Shankar Roy, who on 14 August 1946 urged Hindus to defy the government-declared holiday and keep their shops open, dismissing the Muslim League’s call for a peaceful hartal. Roy’s speech, Tuker argues, “provoked trouble” rather than defusing tensions.

Hindu public opinion at the time was mobilized around slogans such as Akhand Hindustan and Bande Mataram, which reinforced a hardened sense of Hindu identity. Many Hindu extremists interpreted Direct Action Day as an opportunity to “teach the Muslims in Calcutta a lesson,” resulting in widespread attacks on Muslim neighborhoods. As Tuker records, by 7:30 a.m. on 16 August, Hindus had already erected barricades at the Tala and Belgachia bridges to prevent Muslims from entering the city and proceeding toward the Ochterlony Monument, where a mammoth assembly was scheduled to be addressed at 3 p.m. by H. S. Suhrawardy, the Prime Minister of undivided Bengal. Tuker wrote: “Hindus had erected barricades at the Tala and Belgachia bridges to prevent Muslims from entering the city and taking their processions to the middle of the town to the Ochterlony Monument where a mammoth Muslim assembly was to be addressed at 3 p.m. by Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy.”

The peaceful Muslim marchers were assaulted with deadly weapons, triggering riots that soon engulfed Calcutta and later spread to Bihar, U.P., and East Punjab. Tuker’s description is chilling: “Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms.” Many Sikhs employed by Marwari businessmen acted as enforcers, targeting Muslims with impunity.

Even Muslims who were members of the Congress Party were not spared. The killing of Dr. Jamal Mohammed, an eye specialist of Bhowanipore, illustrates the ferocity of the communal frenzy. As reported in Morning News (2 September 1946), Dr. Mohammed pleaded, “Why are you killing me… I am a Congressman and have served the Congress all my life.” The mob responded, “We don’t care… You are a Muslim and that is enough.” His murder was part of a broader pattern aimed at erasing Muslim presence from Hindu-majority localities. The Kazipara bustee, a Muslim pocket on Debendra Ghosh Road in Bhowanipore, was completely wiped off, which killed around one hundred Muslims. Muslim residents of Bhowanipore suffered enormous losses, as every Muslim house in the area was destroyed.

Abul Hashim, General Secretary of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League, offers further insight in In Retrospection, underscoring the climate of fear and the breakdown of trust between communities. He writes, “On the 13th of August I issued a statement to the press in which I stated that Muslim League would observe the Direct Action Day to demonstrate their grievances against British Imperialism. I made it clear that our target was British Imperialism alone.” He continues: 

“I appealed to all sections of the people to make ‘Direct Action Day’ peaceful and not to degenerate it into a strife between people and people despite provocation from elements that might play the game of the imperial........

© Eurasia Review