1971 war a RAW success?

[ghauri05]

an honest question to you, why do you think free syrian army is fighting ? They should have opted for political solution right?

I think they are also repeating the same mistake which pakistan did(May be my knowledge on Syrian issue is not that good) but I know one thing whenever military has launched operation against its own people(for whatever reasons) it had brought nothing good to the country eventually.
But I also heard the news on CNN that some Syrian generals have gone to Turkey for help against their own army so even in the army personnels their is a sense that their army's actions are not justified.

 

[Cherokee]

Both Indians and Pakistanis won't Have it any other way . We both are very very thankful to get rid of each other . I don't know why Bangladeshi's ( At least a few) have not been able to digest their independence yet . Every other day a new theory pops up about '71 then dozens pf pages of deriding India and if someone suggest that they should merge back with Pakistan they even don't want that . I guess you guys have yet not come to terms with your Independence and Blame RAW for it .( Apart from a bazillion different things happening in your country ) .

 

[ghauri05]

If ppl Bealive & practice Quaid's view seriously and try to understand it minimum 1 % , Our united pakistan wud never broke.
Quaid Once told, " forget whether you are sindh,balooch,pathan,punjabi , bangal .only remember that you are a pakistani ".
but ppl forget tht.

I agree. But unfortunately we are still not practising Quaid's principals.

 

[Armstrong]

I think most states with Muslim majority could keep their dominance even under India. Theoretically, 2 nation theory is flawed considering 1/3 of the Muslim population left behind in the mercy of Hindus. When you drawn up a solution for the betterment of a community, you need to have answer for everyone of them. To me, it seems the Pakistan was drawn to safeguard the properties of Muslim Nawabs and Land Lords. You need to look at the founding principle of Muslim League.

Saying so, Congress was equally responsible to alienated Muslims and fueled the fire which eventually resulted the partition.

Jinnah, Sohrawardy, Haq etc were populist leaders but had little control over the core of Muslim League. One of the politician of that time (forgot his name) narrated it nicely, "A country was create with a weird formula and the picture of Jinnah was stuck in its face to give it a nice look"

The State of Pakistan wasn't borne out of an evening's deliberations over tea ! It was a process...a protracted process; Jinnah went from constitutional guarantees to autonomy to finally Independence and the Muslims in the minority provinces knew, throughout, that in case of a complete partition of India whole swathes of their population will be left in India. Even after it he tried to ensure that Pakistan and India would be like Canada and the US so that we'd be able to move freely throughout the Indian subcontinent...heck Liaquat Ali Khan even proposed a Joint-Defence to Nehru well after Jinnah had died !

The Two Nation Theory was nothing more than a desire of the Muslims that because Islam is a lot more than just praying 5 times a day and fasting once a year in Ramadan, that it has a profound and pronounced socio-political-economic and legal dimension to it, we, as Muslims, need the space to express ourselves. The difference in culture, on a take on history, on heroes and villains, on customs and practices were symptoms of that fundamental difference that Islam provides an alternative paradigm that covers everything from the spiritual to the wordily. Because it appeared that we may not get to do that in a United India is the reason why we finally went our separate ways.

On to the Nawabs...! Yes, Jinnah himself exclaimed something to the effect but one would do well to realize that most of the Nawabs from the minority provinces (e.g Liaquat Ali Khan !) left whole villages worth of land back in India and that many of the Landlords in what became Pakistan (e.g Khizar Hiyat Tiwana !) weren't even with the Muslim League and Pro-Pakistan. Either way any other solution to that conflict, in my opinion, would have been disastrous ! I also fear that in a Untied India when the population of the Muslims crosses a certain percentage of the total population of India and they find themselves able to dictate the dominant culture of the land and assert themselves we might have '47 all over again; though hopefully they've integrated well enough over the past 65 years and it may not come to that - the latter is my sincerest hope but the former is a very real fear !

 

[Ajaxpaul]

I understand and sympathize with your feeling. It was an unfortunate twist of history and mistake of our forefathers to accept a "moth eaten" Pakistan the way it happened with two parts. As we said many times, a 3 country solution would have been best.

Even in 1971, a bloody civil war could be avoided, I believe, if RAW hand was not there. We could probably get an amicable separation over time.

But this thing has already happened, mainly due to lack of maturity and foresight of leadership of both wings, like Bhutto-Yahya, Mujib-Tajuddin and of course RAW/India, which was manipulating events using their agents and helpers in Awami League. You can blame these people. We do not blame Pakistan masses for what happened, you also should not blame our masses. If you attack a people they fight back with whatever means they have, even getting help from a former enemy, making temporary friendship with them.

If we had an opposite situation, a Bengali Army was killing local people in West Pakistan, would your people not fight back with whatever means they have?

So I would ask you to be less emotional about history, bad things happen, we all move on. We all have our future to think about, instead of getting stuck in the past.

In short Pakistan ( east and west ) played into the Hands of Indians and lost. Just Admit it and move on.

The world is larger than RAW. If you want to end Indian Influence elect somebody other than the 2 useless begums.

 

[LaBong]

Two nation theory sank in bottom of bay of Bengal, back in seventies. Thanks.

 

[Dance]

Two nation theory sank in bottom of bay of Bengal, back in seventies. Thanks.

No that only would have been true if Bangladesh decided to join india again.


So instead of a two nation theory, it's a three nation theory.

 

[LaBong]

No that only would have been true if Bangladesh decided to join india again.


So instead of a two nation theory, it's a three nation theory.

Please understand three nation theory defies the very existence of two nation theory, opposite of two nation theory is not one nation theory but multiple nation theory.

 

[Dance]

Please understand three nation theory defies the very existence of two nation theory, opposite of two nation theory is not one nation theory but multiple nation theory.

I maybe wrong (and sorry if it doesn't exactly make sense) but how I see it is that the two nation theory did not exactly fail in the sense that the two nation theory wanted to show that Muslims wanted their own separate homeland and to be a part of India. So by Bangladesh not opting to join India again and remaining independent shows the main point of the two nation theory holds true-but its not the two nation theory anymore, but the three or multiple nation theory.

 

[Armstrong]

Please understand three nation theory defies the very existence of two nation theory, opposite of two nation theory is not one nation theory but multiple nation theory.

Please understand that the Two Nation Theory was never about '2,3 or a dozen' nations ! It was about the socio-economic-legal and political dimensions of Islam manifesting themselves in a said State; if that had happened in a United India with the Muslim Majority Provinces being allowed to practise these communal injunctions of Islam as per their Polity, the Two Nation Theory would have been perfectly valid in the context of the Union of India. However as it happened, we couldn't even at a Provincial Level, institute some sort of Shariah or anything like that...hence why we went our separate ways. Furthermore because the understanding of the Islamic Polity is far from being monolithic in the Muslim World we've got Secular Democracies who practise some sort of Islam whether its 'Personal Laws' or 'Religious Education' (e.g Turkey !) on one hand to completely Islamist states like Iran on the other and then you've got countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Libya etc. whom follow a hybrid between the two.

P.S One would also do well to remember that Bangladesh reclaimed her Islamic heritage during the Ziaur Rehman's time with the present Constitution of the country towing a Secularist line along with declaring Islam as the State Religion of the country, much like how 'Egypt' has been for the better part of her existence. Also, the Government instituted the Personal Law aspects of the Shariah with everything from divorce to inheritance determined as per them for the Muslims. Heck the Government even has a Zakat Committee which collects Zakat given voluntarily by the People and dispenses it for public welfare - All are profound ingredients of Islamic Polity ! So in fact, they reverted back to the 'Two Nation Theory' by going back to their interpretation of Political Islam. The reason why the separated from Pakistan wasn't an ideology issue for the Pakistan of that time was fairly pluralistic with nothing remotely comparable to the 'Hudood Laws' or anything like them being incorporated in our constitution, our separation was purely them exercising their democratic right to not live with us and us forcefully ensuring that they do !

 

[Luffy 500]

Two nation theory sank in bottom of bay of Bengal, back in seventies. Thanks.

2 nation theory is still alive as long as BD is not sikkimised and current PAK maintains her
integrity. For BD, thanks to a guy like Pres.Zia we have found an unique identity in line with our
islamic heritage i.e Bangladeshi nationalism not AL's ethnic bengali nationalism. While PAK is still
one of the cradle of muslim unity. Sindis, Baluch, Pathans, Pastoo, punjabis and kashmiris are still united as one single country. Today's PAK along with Indoneshia is a symbol of muslim unity.

 

[Armstrong]

2 nation theory is still alive as long as BD is not sikkimised and current PAK maintains her
integrity. For BD, thanks to a guy like Pres.Zia we have found an unique identity in line with our
islamic heritage i.e Bangladeshi nationalism not AL's ethnic bengali nationalism. While PAK is still
one of the cradle of muslim unity. Sindis, Baluch, Pathans, Pastoo, punjabis and kashmiris are still united as one single country. Today's PAK along with Indoneshia is a symbol of muslim unity.

Thank You, I, as a Pakistani, appreciate that very much ! But we in Pakistan have a lot to learn from Bangladesh - You guys have managed to balance 'Pluralism' and 'Islam' very well and we could learn a lot of valuable lessons from seeing your model and adjusting ours to reflect your strengths !

 

[LaBong]

I maybe wrong (and sorry if it doesn't exactly make sense) but how I see it is that the two nation theory did not exactly fail in the sense that the two nation theory wanted to show that Muslims wanted their own separate homeland and to be a part of India. So by Bangladesh not opting to join India again and remaining independent shows the main point of the two nation theory holds true-but its not the two nation theory anymore, but the three or multiple nation theory.

All these x nation theories are non sequiturs, they simply don't follow.

First some Muslims decided that they can't live with Hindu majority, thus two nation was born.
Then among those very some Muslims, a group of Muslims decided they can't live with other Muslims and Bangladesh was born.
All the while, main proponent of two Nation theory, the Hindustani Muslims, remained minority in both India and Pakistan.
All these don't make any sense to me.

Please understand that the Two Nation Theory was never about '2,3 or a dozen' nations ! It was about the socio-economic-legal and political dimensions of Islam manifesting themselves in a said State; if that had happened in a United India with the Muslim Majority Provinces being allowed to practise these communal injunctions of Islam as per their Polity, the Two Nation Theory would have been perfectly valid in the context of the Union of India. However as it happened, we couldn't even at a Provincial Level, institute some sort of Shariah or anything like that...hence why we went our separate ways. Furthermore because the understanding of the Islamic Polity is far from being monolithic in the Muslim World we've got Secular Democracies who practise some sort of Islam whether its 'Personal Laws' or 'Religious Education' (e.g Turkey !) on one hand to completely Islamist states like Iran on the other and then you've got countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Libya etc. whom follow a hybrid between the two.

P.S One would also do well to remember that Bangladesh reclaimed her Islamic heritage during the Ziaur Rehman's time with the present Constitution of the country towing a Secularist line along with declaring Islam as the State Religion of the country, much like how 'Egypt' has been for the better part of her existence. Also, the Government instituted the Personal Law aspects of the Shariah with everything from divorce to inheritance determined as per them for the Muslims. Heck the Government even has a Zakat Committee which collects Zakat given voluntarily by the People and dispenses it for public welfare - All are profound ingredients of Islamic Polity ! So in fact, they reverted back to the 'Two Nation Theory' by going back to their interpretation of Political Islam. The reason why the separated from Pakistan wasn't an ideology issue for the Pakistan of that time was fairly pluralistic with nothing remotely comparable to the 'Hudood Laws' or anything like them being incorporated in our constitution, our separation was purely them exercising their democratic right to not live with us and us forcefully ensuring that they do !

You don't have any idea.

Partition happened because Congress decided to make Deoband an ally instead of Aligarh educated Hindustani Muslim who were marginalized and saw their political future diminishing.

All these political dimensions of Islam, Islam is more than praying 5 times etc are hogwash, none of the stalwarts of two nation theory was practicing Muslim to begin with.

 

[Md Akmal]

@ Two nation theory is not dead in this Indian-Subcontinent even after Bangladesh became independence.

@ The history of Two Nation Theory goes like this --------- during the First World War when most of the Asian and African Nations were under Colonial rule, President Wilson of USA gave a new theory to the world. He appealed to the Nations who were still under the colonial rule that if they support the Allied Forces and if Allied Forces became victorious than they would be given independence on the basis of " One Nation One State". .

@ Jinnah got inspiration on the declaration of the theory wrote " Two Nation Theory" and started propagating in Indian Sub-Continent among the Muslims. Soon it became popular among the muslims specially in East Bengal and finally Pakistan came into being.

@ Many people are in the opinion that after the creation of Bangladesh the " Two Nation Theory " is dead but practically it is not true. It may not be "Two Nation Theory" but "Three Nation Theory" .

 

[Dance]

All these x nation theories are non sequiturs, they simply don't follow.

First some Muslims decided that they can't live with Hindu majority, thus two nation was born.
Then some other Muslims decided they can't live with other Muslims and Bangladesh was born.
All the while, main proponent of two Nation theory, the Hindustani Muslims, remain minority in both India and Pakistan.
All these don't make any sense to me.

First some Muslims decided that they can't live with Hindu majority,
Well this was the whole point of the two nation theory was it not?

So as Luffy 500 pointed out, as long as Pakistan and Bangladesh are independent the theory still holds-just by a different name.

And 1971 was not due to religious reasons and that was bound to happen at some point considering how not feasible that union was.

Sorry but can you explain your last point to me? All the while, main proponent of two Nation theory, the Hindustani Muslims, remain minority in both India and Pakistan.