Section 144 based on falsehood

Ratan Lal Chakrabarty has done truly commendable scholarly work on the language movement, per courtesy of course of Bangla Academy.
His extremely informative Bhasha Andoloner Dolilpotro (Documents of the Language Movement), published in 2000, will remain remarkable for the meticulous way in which he has unearthed a number of papers and documents relating both to the period leading up to February 21, 1952 as well as after it. The work, as the title suggests, is truly a documentary enumeration of the history behind the struggle for the establishment of Bangla as one of the two state languages of Pakistan.

Prior to the tragic happenings of February 1952, certain elements unwilling to compromise on the matter of the ideology of Pakistan, as they saw it, went all the way toward professing their determination to keep the ideology intact. The consequences were sometimes hilarious. Note may be made of the Aga Khan, who jumped into the fray with the bizarre suggestion that as a way of putting an end to the language controversy, Pakistan should adopt Arabic as its state language. In the process, he went for some defence of Urdu but was not inclined to appreciate the cause of Bangla.
We reproduce here excerpts from some editorial comments by newspapers at the time, meaning February 1951, as they have appeared in Chakrabarty's work.
The Pakistan Observer, in its editorial on February 13, 1951, commented:
"We are glad that the Aga Khan has done some plain speaking, at the risk of being misunderstood, regarding the language controversy. Though we do not think that making Arabic the state language of Pakistan is a feasible proposition. still he has done a service by boldly attacking some false notions about Urdu. . . The only wise course under the circumstances is to adopt both Bengali and Urdu as the state language(s) of Pakistan."
The Morning News, on February 14, 1951, injected a note of sarcasm in its response to the Aga Khan's suggestion:
"'All the three reasons that the Aga Khan has advanced for Arabic and against Urdu appear to be on the face of them fallacious. . . We mean no disrespect to the Aga Khan when we respectfully differ from (sic) him. Arabic has not been able to unite the Arabs themselves. How can it unite Pakistan with the Arab world?"
For its part, the Azad appeared to be pretty enthusiastic about the Aga Khan's views. On February 13, 1951, it had this to say:
"His proposal is not new. It has got many supporters both in eastern and western Pakistan . . . It therefore appears that the movement in support of Arabic is gaining ground. The leaders of the country should therefore go deeply into this matter."
On April 18, 1951, the Pakistan Observer, reacting to suggestions in favour of Urdu as the state language of Pakistan, noted thus:
"Maulana Akram Khan is reported to have said at the Urdu Conference that those who oppose Urdu in East Bengal are the enemies of Islam. Presumably he includes among those 'enemies' those who like Dr Mohd Shahidullah have been advocating Arabic as our state language in preference to Urdu. Those who want to see Urdu and Urdu alone as our national language are bad psychologists."
It may be noted that Dr Shahidullah's views on Arabic had come in mock-serious manner. He had actually argued for Bangla but had ventured to suggest that if it was a matter of an Islamic language for Pakistan, then why not go for Arabic rather than Urdu?
Preparations for the general strike called for February 21, 1952 went on in full swing throughout the day on February 20. A meeting of the All Party State Language Committee of Action took place in the evening at the Nawabpur office of the Awami Muslim League. Virtually, the entire discussion at the meeting was given over to the question of whether to go ahead with the strike the next day by violating Section 144 imposed by the government of East Bengal.
As Badruddin Umar notes, a majority of those present at the meeting were opposed to a violation of Section 144. Only a handful, including Oli Ahad, convener of the Dhaka University State Language Committee of Action, advocated a violation of the government orders.
The orders for an imposition of Section 144 under the Criminal Procedure Code were served on the same day by the District Magistrate of Dhaka, SH Qureshi. Issued through a press note, the orders stipulated an operation of Section 144 for 30 days. Government officials were quick to justify the imposition of Section 144. Among them was Aziz Ahmed, chief secretary to the government of East Bengal, who pointed out that intelligence reports had warned of plans by the protestors to surround the assembly premises and enter the House forcibly. The fact was that though the protestors did plan to lay siege to the assembly, they did not mean to enter it. The government was simply resorting to falsehood in order to clamp Section 144 on the capital as a way of preventing any public show of protest on the language issue.
Chief mMinister Nurul Amin noted subsequently that the decision to impose Section 144 had been made at the official, meaning bureaucratic, level and he had not been consulted on the subject. Amin's statement was a broad hint of how politicians in power at the time were hostage to their officials, in other words, those who were supposed to take orders from them. Chief Secretary Aziz Ahmed ran the province with nary a thought to the authority of the chief minister.
The decision on an imposition of Section 144 was made known all through the city by announcements made by mike. A press statement to that effect would appear in the newspapers on the morning of the next day, February 21.