What's new

1971 East Pakistan Tragedy HISTORY REVISITED REALITY & MYTHS Series Part 01 - 05

The Awami league did not take ownership of the problems of whole country and wanted to be separated. Before 1968, Iskander Mirza a Bengali was all powerful dictator of United Pakistan? The problem was of disparity among people but unfortunately it was seen through racial lens.

I asked you to provide me sources and evidence for the claims you made.

Provide them now.
 
.
I asked you to provide me sources and evidence for the claims you made.

Provide them now.


Jinnah has said that while Urdu was going to be the national language, the provinces were free to choose any language they wished for official use, but this would need to be done through their elected representatives once a constitution was in place. Over the language issue , the Bengalis were unnecessarily being emotional. What I’ve said is no secret it’s on youtube search it Urdu was a rally cause for Bangladeshis nationalism against Pakistan
 
.
Is that photo real? A bunch of disgusting vermin!


Yes all over the social media

Jinnah has said that while Urdu was going to be the national language, the provinces were free to choose any language they wished for official use, but this would need to be done through their elected representatives once a constitution was in place. Over the language issue , the Bengalis were unnecessarily being emotional. What I’ve said is no secret it’s on youtube search it Urdu was a rally cause for Bangladeshis nationalism against Pakistan


It more how punjabis badly treated them almost the same way Hindus treated Muslims and continue mistreat Muslims..
 
Last edited:
.
it failed quickly, because there’s no other way you could run a state with one small bit of 100 million plus living in there 1000 miles away from west Pakistan. India surrounding it on all sides It’s just lunacy listening to experts who think you could over come these odds. that’s before you even acknowledge the Bangladeshis we’re more Indian cultures than us in the west. I’m really surprised it lasted till 71.
Pashtuns and Baloch people find themselves in a situation similar to what Bengalis experienced until 1971. It's important to acknowledge that Pashtuns and Baloch are distinct from the people of the Indian subcontinent, and they have their own unique histories and aspirations. While the two-nation theory primarily relates to India and Pakistan, it is not applicable to Pashtuns and Baloch who never desired to be a part of either India or Pakistan.
 
.
our property dealers effd up. we were humiliated. enemy won. but we never learned the lesson.
 
.
Pashtuns and Baloch people find themselves in a situation similar to what Bengalis experienced until 1971. It's important to acknowledge that Pashtuns and Baloch are distinct from the people of the Indian subcontinent, and they have their own unique histories and aspirations. While the two-nation theory primarily relates to India and Pakistan, it is not applicable to Pashtuns and Baloch who never desired to be a part of either India or Pakistan.


You mean Kashmir Nagaland junagadh state & Khalistan

Like I said. Due to enormous differences among us division was inevitable. However how this happened is really painful. We could have parted peacefully. Bangladesh was never meant to be part of Pakistan, it never was. Look at the geography, and bulky india between was unjust. A country made to stay needed to be intact in terms of geography first .
 
.
Jinnah has said that while Urdu was going to be the national language, the provinces were free to choose any language they wished for official use, but this would need to be done through their elected representatives once a constitution was in place. Over the language issue , the Bengalis were unnecessarily being emotional. What I’ve said is no secret it’s on youtube search it Urdu was a rally cause for Bangladeshis nationalism against Pakistan

Where is your sources?
 
.
Due to enormous differences among us division was inevitable.
It wasn’t inevitable but made one by poor foresight and attitude of Paksiatni leaders of that time.
Had it been considered equal in all respects from day one after 1947, there was no reason for that population to feel alienated.

Power hunger, greed and false sense of racial superiority were the main reasons for separation and not the “enormous differences” as it is made out to be.

When one says “enormous difference”, what does it encompass? Language, physical appearance, colour of skin? And to what extent?
 
.
Bangladeshis should never have been part of our Pakistan federation. Simple as that


That wasn’t the problem.. the problem was non application of the rule of law

If the army duffers just followed the constitution ie allowed Rehman to become head of state .. there would be no war and india would have remained a loser state that it was
 
.
You mean Kashmir Nagaland junagadh state & Khalistan

Like I said. Due to enormous differences among us division was inevitable. However how this happened is really painful. We could have parted peacefully. Bangladesh was never meant to be part of Pakistan, it never was. Look at the geography, and bulky india between was unjust. A country made to stay needed to be intact in terms of geography first .
Bangladesh was very much a part of the two-nation theory and the Indian subcontinent. East Pakistan was a result of the partition of India based on religious lines. On the other hand, Pashtuns and Baloch were never a part of India and had no direct connection to the Hindu-Muslim dynamics that unfolded during the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan was intended to be a homeland for Indian Muslims, so the involvement of Baloch or Pashtuns in Pakistan's formation might be irrelevant or Insignificant.

It wasn’t inevitable but made one by poor foresight and attitude of Paksiatni leaders of that time.
Had it been considered equal in all respects from day one after 1947, there was no reason for that population to feel alienated.

Power hunger, greed and false sense of racial superiority were the main reasons for separation and not the “enormous differences” as it is made out to be.

When one says “enormous difference”, what does it encompass? Language, physical appearance, colour of skin? And to what extent?
The question arises as to how the inclusion of Balochistan and Pashtun regions can be justified as part of Pakistan, especially considering the significant differences that led to the secession of Bengal from Pakistan.
 
.
It wasn’t inevitable but made one by poor foresight and attitude of Paksiatni leaders of that time.
Had it been considered equal in all respects from day one after 1947, there was no reason for that population to feel alienated.

Power hunger, greed and false sense of racial superiority were the main reasons for separation and not the “enormous differences” as it is made out to be.

When one says “enormous difference”, what does it encompass? Language, physical appearance, colour of skin? And to what extent?


I’ve already admitted that Bengalis were mistreated , so I don’t need you to tell me, i have accepted that I’m not defending my Gov, they have done blunders , they tried to quash a revolt which they themselves and east Pakistanis created. The Bengalis 6 demands were also ludicrous they wanted Bengali to be national language!!!!
 
.
Like I said. Due to enormous differences among us division was inevitable. However how this happened is really painful. We could have parted peacefully. Bangladesh was never meant to be part of Pakistan, it never was. Look at the geography, and bulky india between was unjust. A country made to stay needed to be intact in terms of geography first .
No, division was not inevitable. Democracy and autonomy of East Bengal could have preserved that union. Even to the last, Sheikh Mujib negotiated for autonomy, not independence.

Even geographic fragmentation is not an insurmountable problem for national unity if there is enough goodwill among the various groups within the country. Malaysia, Indonesia are geographically fragmented and ethnically diverse, yet they are cohesive, successful states. Problem with pre-1971 Pakistan was, it's West Pakistan centric feudal-military elites never accepted Bengalis in a good faith or considered equal partner in national affairs. They wanted a ruler-subjugated relationship. With that kind of attitude, national solidarity between East and West Pakistan rapidly evaporated. If there was enough goodwill and national solidarity, India could have never able to splinter Pakistan. It could not do that in 1965 war.
 
Last edited:
.
That wasn’t the problem.. the problem was non application of the rule of law

If the army duffers just followed the constitution ie allowed Rehman to become head of state .. there would be no war and india would have remained a loser state that it was

Pakistan should have made that l GHADDAR Sheikh Mujeeb Pm as he won election

Then quickly negotiated a separation of both wings peacefully

Instead it was the greed of absolute power by certain quarters fu@ked it up
 
.
The Bengalis 6 demands were also ludicrous they wanted Bengali to be national language!!!!
The seed for this was sown by poor foresight. The seed of cessation and ludicrous demands became a tree. It wouldn’t have got any traction if the discrimination hadn’t started earlier.

The statement that, separation was inevitable, is made to justify the folly of those who had sown those seeds.
 
.
No, division was not inevitable. Democracy and autonomy of East Bengal could have preserved that union. Even to the last, Mujib negotiated for autonomy, not independence.

Even geographic fragmentation is not an insurmountable problem for national unity if there is enough goodwill among the various groups within the country. Malaysia, Indonesia are geographically fragmented, yet they are cohesive, successful states. Problem with pre 1971 Pakistan was, it's West Pakistan centric feudal-military elite never accepted bengalis in a good faith or considered equal partner in national affairs. They wanted a ruler-subjugated relationship. With this kind of attitude, national solidarity between East and West Pakistan rapidly evaporated. If there was enough good-will and national solidarity, India could have never able to splinter Pakistan. It could not do that in 1965 war.
Pakistan, as an entity, was created on the basis of Islam, and if you were to ask an Indian about their primary identity, they would likely mention their nationality, whereas a Pakistani might prioritize their religious affiliation. This distinction is evident in videos available on platforms like YouTube, where individuals from both countries are asked this question. A nation founded on the principles of Islam may face challenges in achieving success comparable to Israel, which is deeply rooted in Jewish culture and the birthplace of Judaism. Similarly, countries like India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, and other East Asian nations are associated with the birthplace of Hindu-Buddhist philosophies, while Arabia is linked to Islam, and the Western world is connected to Christianity.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom