Homo Sapiens
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2015
- Messages
- 9,641
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Princely state of Hyderabad was a 87% hindu majority area ruled by Muslim Nizam.It was a land locked state with Indian landmass surrounding from all side.Moreover Hindu majority there agitated to join India.And India was not willing to allow a muslim ruled state inside it's abdomen.So Hyderabad was illegally and forcefully taken by India.These criteria was not present in Bengal then.Bengal was then largest as well as a muslim majority province ruled by Muslim league.In 1946, HS Suhrawardy who was then CM of undivided Bengal declared that, if Congress and British don't agree with Pakistan then Bengal will declare independence unilaterally.Bengal was destined to separate, with or without linkage with western territory.The reason that happened was because Bangladeshis knew that Jinnah was fighting hard for these lands but if instead of one big country, they ask for 3 countries then it was most likely the smaller 2 won' get any freedom at all and Bangladesh would' have to live with India. And Bangladeshi leaders were correct in this assessment, because that's what happened with Osmanistan or Hyderabad Deccan
What claim Pakistan had over Hindu princely state of Bikanir or Jayselmir? that Jinnah gave them blank papers to write down any clause to join Pakistan.He didn't succeeded to win them though.But there was a chance for Tripura.As it's entire economy and transport infrastructure was dependent upon East Bengal and rulers were interested to join Pakistan.There was a possibility that, India would not raised any strong objection in case of Tripura as it didn't have much importance for India unlike the western princely states in Rajasthan.But Jinnah and top muslim leaguer were obsessed with Kashmir and wining princely states in Western sides.So they didn't bother to put any attention for East Pakistan.And what nonsense are you talking about Tripura? British were not distributing lands like channa, Tripura was a Hindu majority state, what claim could Pakistan have?
Arakan is not a historic land of burma.Burmese set their foot for the first time in history there in 1774.then very soon, entire territory came under British and administrated as part of Bengal.When British created Burma province, they drawn a border between Bengal and burma which left some Muslim areas on the side of burma.That areas are the Rohingya areas.Since the early middle ages, there was no dividing line between Chittagong and Arakan.These two region was closely interconnected.People moved back and forth all the time, until British made boundary became two separate country.How can you claim this land historically burmese when even today ethnic burmese are outsider in Arakan and a small minority there? Arakan is a land belongs to Rohingya and Rakhine people. Burmese are outsider there. Arakan became burmese in a same way of how Arunachal Pradesh became Indian.As both Bengal and burma in 1947 was part of British empire, Jinnah could have pressed the British to include the Rohingya areas to include in East Pakistan.But he didn't.I am not judging him negatively, perhaps he could not guess how things will turn bad in the future.As for Rohingyas land, that was historic land of Myanmaar. How would you feel if Myanmar’s Buddhists people settle in Chittagong and after 50 years claim the land and try to merge with Myanmaar?
Last edited: