The Riots of 1953 — Page 105
105 of the colonial system both in its political and economical aspects. That condemnation was most emphatic and was passionately delivered. In the course of that condemnation, as an instance of the arrogance of colonial officialdom, I referred to the illtreatment of a Pakistani citizen in one of the British colonies. I did not mention the name of the Colony. I cannot vouch for it because I cannot just now refresh my memory, but I believe that the fact that he was an Ahmadi was not even mentioned. It was, however, merely to illustrate the working of colonialism that the incident was cited. In the course of the same session, the question came up of putting the Moroccan and Tunisian question on the agenda. Again mine was the outstanding speech on that aspect which contained a severe condemnation of the attitude of those States including the U. S. A. who were opposed to putting the item on the agenda. I particularly recall that when I mentioned that in the case of refusal to consider these questions, there might be bloodshed in Morocco and that the principal responsibility for that blood shed would be on the shoulders of the delegate of the United States who had spoken before me, he went pale at the vehemence with which that condemnation was delivered. It is, therefore, very unfair to suggest that though I took up the advocacy of an Ahmadi who had been illtreated, I paid no attention to questions of general interest for Muslims. To Mr. Faiyaz Ali, Advocate-General, Pakistan, on behalf of the Central Government:- Q. Did you deal with the mercy petitions of persons convicted by the Martial Law Courts while the Prime Minister of Pakistan had gone to England in connection with the Coronation? A. No. I disposed of all the business pertaining to the office of the Prime Minister as well as to that of the Defence Minister