16th December 1971: From East Pakistan to Bangladesh

[eastwatch]

It said independent states, it didn't say "an independent state". Just look at the name "Pakistan" which was proposed at the time: P-Punjab, A-Afghania (NWFP), K-Kashmir, S-Sindh, tan-Balochistan. Bangladesh was not supposed to be a part of Pakistan, it only joined at the end. That did not mean Bangladesh was not fighting for independence, but it was not part of Pakistan's masterplan until the end.

You are mistaken in the naming of the muslim majority country that was named Pakistan. Allama Iqbal was the originator of this word, 'PAKISTAN.' He was a dreamer and he dreamed of a Muslim country consisting of not only the muslim majority paart (s) os India. He also included other neighbouring countries. Well, it was only a dream and he first thought of Pak as pure and (i)Stan as the land. In total the meaning was the Land of Pure.

But, then he thought, P stands for Punjab, A stands for Afghanistan, K for Kashmir, I for Iran, S for Sindh, T for Turkey, A for Afghaniya of NWFP and N for baluchistaN. So, there is no Afghanistan, Iran or Turkey in Pakistan, but, Bengal was included. However, the name Pakistan was not changed. So, your claim is based on wrong information.

The name Pakistan was coined by Allma Iqbal, but it was Sher-e-Bangal A.K. Fazlul Haque, the then Chief Minister of Bengal who proposed Pakistan Resolution in Lahore in 1940. So, you are wrong in many counts about the creation of Pakistan. You just do not know that Bangali and Bihari Muslims were at the forefront of Pakistan movement, when Punjabis and other now Pakistanis were ready to live in an united India.

 

[LaBong]

Where does the 1940 Lahore Resolution statement even say East Pakistan would be a part of West Pakistan, & both would be one nation?

How does the Two Nation theory work with multiple Nations?

 

[LaBong]

Where have I said it was not the fault of Bhutto & Yahya Khan. I just said that the Bhartis exploited the genuine grievances of the Bengali people in 1969 & 1970, & converted them into secessionist ones.

Yeah right, it was Indian Army soldiers in PA uniform who carried out Op Searchlight.

 

[Kazhugu]

Pakistan is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, so it is the same in the eyes of the people. Plain & simple.

it is not so simple my dear.....if they think they are muslims...then they should not believe in nation states....the reason why deoband opposed the creation of pakistan....so i think the pakistanis are confused....

 

[Kazhugu]

It said independent states, it didn't say "an independent state". Just look at the name "Pakistan" which was proposed at the time: P-Punjab, A-Afghania (NWFP), K-Kashmir, S-Sindh, tan-Balochistan. Bangladesh was not supposed to be a part of Pakistan, it only joined at the end. That did not mean Bangladesh was not fighting for independence, but it was not part of Pakistan's masterplan until the end.

u clearly dont know the history behind partition as is evident........now tell me what ATM stands for...any time money..kya ?

 

[Don Jaguar]

You are mistaken in the naming of the muslim majority country that was named Pakistan. Allama Iqbal was the originator of this word, 'PAKISTAN.' He was a dreamer and he dreamed of a Muslim country consisting of not only the muslim majority paart (s) os India. He also included other neighbouring countries. Well, it was only a dream and he first thought of Pak as pure and (i)Stan as the land. In total the meaning was the Land of Pure.

But, then he thought, P stands for Punjab, A stands for Afghanistan, K for Kashmir, I for Iran, S for Sindh, T for Turkey, A for Afghaniya of NWFP and N for baluchistaN. So, there is no Afghanistan, Iran or Turkey in Pakistan, but, Bengal was included. However, the name Pakistan was not changed. So, your claim is based on wrong information.

The name Pakistan was coined by Allma Iqbal, but it was Sher-e-Bangal A.K. Fazlul Haque, the then Chief Minister of Bengal who proposed Pakistan Resolution in Lahore in 1940. So, you are wrong in many counts about the creation of Pakistan. You just do not know that Bangali and Bihari Muslims were at the forefront of Pakistan movement, when Punjabis and other now Pakistanis were ready to live in an united India.

What nonsense all and all wrong.

 

[patna_ke_presley]

I maintain East Pakistan had greater affinity towards their ethnic identity than their nationalistic one. The Punjabis, Pakhtuns, Sindhis, Balochis, Kashmiris, Hazaras have never demanded their languages be the national languages of Pakistan. They have learned & adopted Urdu, & accept Urdu as their national pride. They proudly accept & speak Urdu today.

Bangladesh was never part of the original plan of Pakistan, & I wish Bangladesh had never been part of Pakistan in 1947. If 1971 had not happened in 1971, it would have happened later. It was never a feasible model having the East surrounded by enemy territory in all four directions, & being separated from it by 1500 miles.

Pakistan is a young country, it is still shaping itself up everyday. Even the US had a civil war in Gettysburg where the South wanted to separate from the North & form a separate nation. The Sindhi, 'Mohajir', Pakhtun, Balochi, Hazara, even the Punjabis have faced severe injustices in this country (sometimes more than the Bangla people), but there has hardly been any secessionist movements, on the same level as the Bangla people. The Bangla people let their justified grievances against W.Pakistan be exploited by India in 1969 & 1970 to become secessionist ones, & that is what caused trouble.

The Pakistani people brought the Musharraf dictatorship down a few years ago, they did not start the secessionist movement like the Bangla people did. The Pakistani people today, despite the various grievances they have had, have always thought of the importance of the country & their nationalistic identity over their ethnic one, this is the difference between the Bangla people & the Pakistani people. The Pakistani people have used legal means to empower themselves, they feel Pakistan is their country & they own a part of this country.

Because it is difficult for Bengalis to learn Hindi and Urdu. Bengalis find even Hindi as difficult when there is so much common vocabulary, forget Urdu which is highly Persianized.

But it was a joke, Bengali formed 55% of population and still they had to take permission from minority west Pakistanis for Constitutional language, permitting Bengali script or Printing Bengali language on notes.

In India, we majority North-Indians made our mother tongue Hindi as official language with Devanagari as script. We dominated in India and not any minority group.

 

[punisher]

Where have I said it was not the fault of Bhutto & Yahya Khan. I just said that the Bhartis exploited the genuine grievances of the Bengali people in 1969 & 1970, & converted them into secessionist ones.



It said independent states, it didn't say "an independent state". Just look at the name "Pakistan" which was proposed at the time: P-Punjab, A-Afghania (NWFP), K-Kashmir, S-Sindh, tan-Balochistan. Bangladesh was not supposed to be a part of Pakistan, it only joined at the end. That did not mean Bangladesh was not fighting for independence, but it was not part of Pakistan's masterplan until the end.

hmmm Then what about. United states of America. Letters is just 21 but states 50......

Then how can you claim that Pakistan is trying to Liberate Kashmir. By the your logic, Pakistan have plans to occupy Kashmir. That's why you people attacked When maharaja decision is pending.

 

[Syed Naved]

What nonsense all and all wrong.

jaguar dont be angry,in some content it's true.
If sher e bangla dont proposed this resolution pakistan never would create.bengal was included pakistan,but problem was muzib and suhrawardy they want to join with india.this is complete history in short.

 

[Md Akmal]

What nonsense all and all wrong.

@ Iqbal was a lavish poet but not a politician. Most of the time he was in Europe. His wife was also a foreigner.

@ My dear Don Jaguar, during the general election of 1946 Muslim Leaque only got majority in Bengal. In Punjab and Sind they were doing "Unionist" politics. In north west province, I think Congress formed the govt. Bengal played a key role in forming Pakistan. Iqbal's Pakistan was only dream. " Lalke lenge Pakistan", I tell you really people fought for it and sacrified their life. Punjab's have given blood similarly Bengal has also given blood and side by side Bihares also.

 

[53fd]

@ Iqbal was a lavish poet but not a politician. Most of the time he was in Europe. His give was also a foreigner.

@ My dear Don Jaguar, during the general election of 1946 Muslim Leaque only got majority in Bengal. In Punjab and Sind they were doing "Unionist" politics. In north west province, I think Congress formed the govt. Bengal played a key role in forming Pakistan. Iqbal's Pakistan was only dream. " Lalke lenge Pakistan", I tell you really people fought for it and sacrified their life. Punjab's have given blood similarly Bengal has also given blood and side by side Bihares also.

Bengal played a big role in the Pakistan movement, but right at the end. The 1940 Lahore Resolution did not explicitly talk about a sovereign nation Pakistan along with East Pakistan, it talked about the empowerment of Muslims & the separate identity of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent.

 

[toxic_pus]

Where have I said it was not the fault of Bhutto & Yahya Khan. I just said that the Bhartis exploited the genuine grievances of the Bengali people in 1969 & 1970, & converted them into secessionist ones.

The East Bengalis never wanted to secede from Pakistan until the massacre on 26th March, 1971. Before that, they first demanded their legitimate constitutional right, and then partial autonomy. The evil 'Bhartis' didn't turn them secessionist. Your people did.

It said independent states, it didn't say "an independent state". Just look at the name "Pakistan" which was proposed at the time: P-Punjab, A-Afghania (NWFP), K-Kashmir, S-Sindh, tan-Balochistan. Bangladesh was not supposed to be a part of Pakistan, it only joined at the end. That did not mean Bangladesh was not fighting for independence, but it was not part of Pakistan's masterplan until the end.

Where does the 1940 Lahore Resolution statement even say East Pakistan would be a part of West Pakistan, & both would be one nation?

The language of Lahore resolution is indeed contradictory. I'll grant you that. It says that:

'...the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India should be grouped to constitute "Independent States" in which the Constituent Units shall be autonomous and sovereign.'
​

In the words of B.R.Ambedkar (in his 'Pakistan or The Partition of India'):

'Does the Resolution contemplate that these Muslim provinces, after being incorporated into States, will remain each an independent sovereign State or will they be joined together into one constitution as members of a single State, federal or unitary? On this point, the Resolution is rather ambiguous, if not self-contradictory. It speaks of grouping the zones into "Independent States in which the Constituent Units shall be autonomous and sovereign." The use of the term "Constituent Units" indicates that what is contemplated is a Federation. If that is so, then, the use of the word "sovereign" as an attribute of the Units is out of place. Federation of Units and sovereignty of Units are contradictions. It may be that what is contemplated is a confederation.'​

That acronym 'Pakistan' was coined, or rather conjured up, by Rehmat Ali, for whom Pakistan excluded Bengal. However Muslim League extended it to include Bengal. Allama Iqbal, the originator of the term had entirely different idea. He was talking of pan-Islamic area, which he called the 'Land of the Pure' ('Pak' means pure, 'Sthan' means land). Because of this force fitting, an inconsistency remains in the name. Kashmir was never part of British India and therefore legally outside the scope of any kind of grouping (or partition) that was sought in Lahore resolution.

Bangladesh (or East Paksitan) was very much a part of Muslim League's masterplan from the beginning (assuming Lahore Resolution as beginning).

 

[53fd]

The language of Lahore resolution is indeed contradictory. I'll grant you that. It says that:

The Muslim League did not demand a separate state for Muslims till the right end. The Lahore Resolution did not talk about a sovereign nation called Pakistan, it only talked about the separate identity Muslims had from Hindus, & the Lahore Resolution 1940 was used as a means to empower them. Jinnah had always favored a one-nation concept, but he wanted certain reservations to be given to Muslims, & he wanted strong, autonomous provinces/states (like Spain has these days) & a weak center. There was never a separate concept of a separate Muslim nation in the Lahore Resolution 1940.

 

[akash57]

Yah, we followed the Quranic teachings throughout the 23 years of united Pakistan, but, in return, we were kicked around when claimed for the fair share of the wealth of the country. The result was the dismembering of Pakistan into two. So, why you guys did not teach the west Pakistani politicians about the Quranic teachings, too.

I understand what you mean and agree with you, eastwatch. The reason I put this is to promote the restrengthening of ties in the present, I'm not in any way denying the wrongdoings of the West. But at the same time, I do not wish to promote a re-establishment or re-unification of United Pakistan. Why? Simple. I, like Faarhan, am a supporter for the Khilafah, which WILL come in the future when Allah wills. What I mean to say is that I support the unification of Pakistan and Bangladesh as much as ANY other two Muslim countries until we Muslims are all ONE. Because the main reason for the creation of United Pakistan in the first place was that we were all Muslims even though we were of different ethnicities and cultural/linguistic backgrounds. So given that, why stop there? Why not unite ALL Muslims?

 

[Don Jaguar]

jaguar dont be angry,in some content it's true.
If sher e bangla dont proposed this resolution pakistan never would create.bengal was included pakistan,but problem was muzib and suhrawardy they want to join with india.this is complete history in short.

Agreed with this part, sher-e-bangla is my hero.

But all other is wrong.