advantages Of Creation Of Bangladesh To Pakistan

[Md Akmal]

@ To comment on Pakistani politics it is very difficult. Pakistan inherited many problems from the British. Some of the problems are depicted below:

* The major portion of Pakistan(Punjab & NWFP)was annexed to British Raj on that day(1849) after the Second Anglo-Sikh Battle. As such majority of common people remained illiterate and politically less experienced than other parts of India.Soon they became too loyal to British. In 1857 when "Sepoy Mutiny", took place the people did not realised what to do ? They remained loyal to British and hence British Heapplied "Divide and Rule" policy and with the greater support of Phatans and Punjabese crashed the revolt.


* When all the muslims of Indian sub-continents are fighting for the separate homeland under the banner of All India Muslim Leaque, the people of Punjab and Sind are doing Unionist Politics. The people of NWFP are interested in Congress(Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan)and separate "Phuktoon".

* Basically the peoples of Gilgit,Waristan(FATA,)NWFP and Tribal areas are Phathans. Historically they had a ethinic link with greater Afganistan. These areas were intentionally separated from Afgan to make them weaker. On the other hand these people had always a dream either to be independant or merge with Afganistan. This advantage was taken by India but the people of Pakistan remained dumped and silent. I have a doubt if Taleban wins in future than greater part of Pakistan will go in the hands of Taleban. May be Baluchistan, NWFP, Wazristan, Tribal areas of Baristan and Gilgit. It is not that the people of Afganistan will come and annex them but they themselve will join them. And poor Pakistan instead of fighting with India will fight with her own people. By this time the people of Kashmir will have no longer interest in united Pakistan. May be with the influence of Taleban they might get independance. Now once India sees that major portion of Pakistan is gone on Taleban side they might grant independan to Kashmir through referrendum. At that time peopleof Kashmir may not vote for Pakistan.


* Now this reminds me an inccident. Probably it was in the year October 1947/1948. The inccident took place at Dhaka. The Rani of Tripura State(Princely State)suddendly and hurriedly came to East Bengal(later East Pakistan) and mate Chief Minister Khaja Wasiuddin for her intention to join Pakistan. I think it was the only case where the Hindu Rani has voluntarily came and asked to join Pakistan. It may be mentioned here that at that time it was more than 500 hundred Princely States in the Indian Sub-Continent who were offered either to join Pakistan or India or remain independant. CM Khaja Wasiuddin immediately gave a telegram to Jinnah about her intention. But with no reply. When contacted in telephone, it was informed that Jinnah is too busy in Kashmir affair. Rani repeatedly agued that she cannot stay too long in Dhaka. After 15 days a return message came Jinnah cannot come to Dhaka and mate Rani. He is too busy in making revolt in Kashmir with the help of Tribal people. And more so Pakistan cannot annoy India in two fronts. Once this was informed to Rani she still waited with a hope that the Jinnah will soom come and mate him. At last she went to Tripura in empty hand. Within next 6 to 8 months India attacked and annexed Tripurra silently and the only Two Battalion of 20 Division of Great Pakistan Army remained "Stand Fast" and General Ayub the then GOC of Eastern Wing "marmaring" in his big heart, the Great Saying, "Larke Lange Pakistan". Jinnah could not recover in Kashmir and the people of Pakistan still hanting for that without any fruitful result.

* In the true sense, neither the Pakistani Political ellite nor the Army ellite had a wide vision about the future of Pakistan. In 1948, once Jinnah visited Dhaka he at once announced, "Urdu and Urdu will be state langause of Pakistan" without realising its political implication. Jinnah's dream never realised rather soon it ignited the fire and East Pakistan was separated through a bloodly war and became independant Bangladesh.

@ In 1958, there was no need of declaring Marshal Law by Iskander Mirza. In 1955, Pakistan has just completed her constitution and it was widely accepted in both wings of Pakistan.Well there might be some political instability but in the process it would have been alright but great generals did not liked it and hence as a true patriot(khota)something has to be done, my foot.

@ Even though once ML was declared with a good intention but soon General Ayub overthrow Iskander Mirza and took power himself and became a President. I think, Iskander Mirza could have been far better than General Ayub. He was in the British army for short period(6 years) then he was selected for Civil service and was in NWFP, Waziristan , Noshera, Bannu and also as a Governor of East Pakistan. He was the first muslim Joint Defence Secretary during the last days of United India. However, General Ayub also did good for the people of Pakistan but in a brute way which has short lasting or in other words tempory measures. Once he went his system also went along with him and we people of Pakistan were in thick soup. Now the burden again comes to new generation of Pakistan. Infact those who fought for united Pakistan by this time either isolated in the society or died or the leadership was not in their hand. This has also had a valid reason. Most of the Muslim Leaque top leaders basically came from India and hence they did not had any people base(constituency). So they were relactant to give free election. Leaders like Jinnah, Liakat Ali Khan, Surwardy, Khaja washiuddin and many others.

@ Again in 1969 once Ayub handover power to Yahya he is another dumped General having no idea about politics. Actually in the true sence he forcely adicated Ayub and took power. So he was also not interested in Convention Muslim Leaque since it was created by Ayub. He was warried if at all This ML comes to power he had it. So he conningly convicated all the central funds of Convention Muslim Leaque. He also made an arrangement that all fraction of Muslim Leaque to remain undivided and hence pave the way for the PPP and Awame Leaque to win without realising its implication. It was just the simple equation. Muslim Leaque was isolated from East Pakistan back in 1954 though once Ayub came he re-habiliated them in a different name. The condition of Muslim Leaque was also not good in other provinces of West Pakistan. So the blunder was made by Yahya himself in order to save his skin. On the other hand Bhutto the new generation politician could not hold his horse so it was inevitable....Now whom to blame the "chirya" is out of cage now.

@ The last point about General Musharraf. What was the need for Musharraf to overthrow Newaz sharif from power. He was running the country well. So what Musharraf was sacked it hardly matters for the greater people of Pakistan.

Take it easy my dear friends of Pakistan. "Jeo Pakistan".

By the way still I donnot understand the meaning of "Pak sar samin sadbad", though for many years I......

Akmal, Dhaka, Bangladesh.[/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I]

 

[TopCat]

East Pakistan sacrificed a lot for Pakistan. First Calcutta, second Tripura, third war for Kashmir, fourth Language and fifth and most horrified 1.5 million dead bodies. God bless Pakistan.

 

[Perceptron]

When all the muslims of Indian sub-continents are fighting for the separate homeland under the banner of All India Muslim Leaque, the people of Punjab and Sind are doing Unionist Politics. The people of NWFP are interested in Congress(Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan)and separate "Phuktoon".

This is really a fabricated, and i would go on to say, an absolute rubbish statement you have concocted here ; Right now i am in my Office, but i can nullify your claim word for word, once i get home, and have my sources out for you.

Principally, The Unionists tried to make peasants and kisans lead from the front ; And they never played communal politics like the bigoted Muslim League who often drove its people to communal frenzy. The Unionists always believed on economic freedom as a predecessor of social freedom and were in fact secular in spirit ; It was the parochial attitude of Jinnah and his cohorts and the SAD that communalism became the order of the day, which is why Partition led to such massacres with Muslims on the one side and Sikhs and Hindus on the other.

All in all, if the Unionists were in power, then we would never have seen such an aftermath as was seen in Punjab during Partition.

Let me get my sources on the same once i get back to home.

 

[Md Akmal]

This is really a fabricated, and i would go on to say, an absolute rubbish statement you have concocted here ; Right now i am in my Office, but i can nullify your claim word for word, once i get home, and have my sources out for you.

Principally, The Unionists tried to make peasants and kisans lead from the front ; And they never played communal politics like the bigoted Muslim League who often drove its people to communal frenzy. The Unionists always believed on economic freedom as a predecessor of social freedom and were in fact secular in spirit ; It was the parochial attitude of Jinnah and his cohorts and the SAD that communalism became the order of the day, which is why Partition led to such massacres with Muslims on the one side and Sikhs and Hindus on the other.

All in all, if the Unionists were in power, then we would never have seen such an aftermath as was seen in Punjab during Partition.

Let me get my sources on the same once i get back to home.

@ Ye bhai, I am talking on the line of "two nation theory", I never critisized the politics of Unionist. At that time the main leader of Punjab was Hyat. He should have joined ML from the very begging instead of joining lately.

@ We the muslims of Indian sub-continent always wanted to have an cordial relation from the very beginning but the attitude of the hindus forced us to think differently.

@ See what happened after the election of 1937 and 1946, does the muslims got their due share ?

 

[Skies]

There was a important reason why Bangla wasn't accepted too well among west Pakistani Muslims. It use Devanagari script over Arabic. There was a proposal by Pakistani government to replace the script but hardcore anti Islamic Bengali intellectual refused the idea. As a result Bangla still consider a non Muslim language even though a lot of them speak it.

Thank you for sharing this unknown history. There was not any harm if BD would change the script. Chagol-Goru-Ghora-Hass-Murgi-Pakhi would have the same meaning with Arabic script also. I think that would be better for United Pakistan. Moreover, it would must be better for spreading Bangla and Bangla literature beyond BDland.

 

[Perceptron]

Ye bhai, I am talking on the line of "two nation theory", I never critisized the politics of Unionist. At that time the main leader of Punjab was Hyat. He should have joined ML from the very begging instead of joining lately.

We the muslims of Indian sub-continent always wanted to have an cordial relation from the very beginning but the attitude of the hindus forced us to think differently.

Please, do not get me started on the Two-Nation theory or it will open a Can of Worms against the proponents of the Theory. What does the Two-Nation Theory state as its idealogy for separation ? That the Muslims in India were fundamentally different from the Hindus in India and hence needed a separate state for living as separate entities ? And that the distinguishing factor here is Religion instead of language, culture of ethnicity ?

1. Then why are there more Muslims in India rather than Pakistan or Bangladesh ? In fact the intra-religious harmony is more in India rather than in Pakistan or Bangladesh. The Muslims in Pakistan kill each other on a much higher and larger scale than is done in India. Ethnic cleansing and Intolerance is the order of the day whether it be against Shias, Ahmediyas or even Sufi followers. This Taqfeeri attitude is what is the cause of Muslims to kill fellow Muslims and non-Muslims, and until you get rid of it, we will see much more mini-Genocides within Pakistan in the years to come.

2. Why did the 1971 war happen if Muslims wanted a Separate state to live in ? And don't give me that BS that not merging with India validates the TNT. TNT simply stated that Muslims needed to be separated as a distinct identity owing to their Religion ; If Religion is the cause for not living with Hindus, then what's the principle for East Pakistanis for separating from West Pakistanis ?

3. What the Muslims of the Sub-continent failed to realise that Sindh and Punjab were a part of an earlier Indus Valley Civilization which was more Pagan in nature, but their history started off only with the conquest of the Ghauris and the Ghaznavis and the Mughals. This is not only amusing, but also the way this c0ck-and-bull is played out shows the nature of denial that Muslims of the sub-continent want to live in.

 

[justanobserver]

^
It was more of a 'class' divide than a religious one. West Pakistan was composed of feudals who could not stand the thought of a Hindu majority (which were formally peasants) in power.

East Pakistan case was reverse, Hindus were the feudals hence the divide, when Pakistan was formed the East Pakistani's got the short end of the stick.

They tried to escape the feudals but ended up being ruled by them (West Pakistanis), 1971 followed

The 'Muslims are one nation' BS was to gain political mileage, that's all

 

[TopCat]

Thank you for sharing this unknown history. There was not any harm if BD would change the script. Chagol-Goru-Ghora-Hass-Murgi-Pakhi would have the same meaning with Arabic script also. I think that would be better for United Pakistan. Moreover, it would must be better for spreading Bangla and Bangla literature beyond BDland.

I think Urdu would be much more acceptable to Bengalis if they changed their script to Bengali only.

Chiria would be called same chiria,
Murge will be called same Murge and will definitely lay more eggs

Shoot.. i dont know all the urdu vocubulary..

Skie you dont know what you talking about...

 

[Md Akmal]

Please, do not get me started on the Two-Nation theory or it will open a Can of Worms against the proponents of the Theory. What does the Two-Nation Theory state as its idealogy for separation ? That the Muslims in India were fundamentally different from the Hindus in India and hence needed a separate state for living as separate entities ? And that the distinguishing factor here is Religion instead of language, culture of ethnicity ?

1. Then why are there more Muslims in India rather than Pakistan or Bangladesh ? In fact the intra-religious harmony is more in India rather than in Pakistan or Bangladesh. The Muslims in Pakistan kill each other on a much higher and larger scale than is done in India. Ethnic cleansing and Intolerance is the order of the day whether it be against Shias, Ahmediyas or even Sufi followers. This Taqfeeri attitude is what is the cause of Muslims to kill fellow Muslims and non-Muslims, and until you get rid of it, we will see much more mini-Genocides within Pakistan in the years to come.

2. Why did the 1971 war happen if Muslims wanted a Separate state to live in ? And don't give me that BS that not merging with India validates the TNT. TNT simply stated that Muslims needed to be separated as a distinct identity owing to their Religion ; If Religion is the cause for not living with Hindus, then what's the principle for East Pakistanis for separating from West Pakistanis ?

3. What the Muslims of the Sub-continent failed to realise that Sindh and Punjab were a part of an earlier Indus Valley Civilization which was more Pagan in nature, but their history started off only with the conquest of the Ghauris and the Ghaznavis and the Mughals. This is not only amusing, but also the way this c0ck-and-bull is played out shows the nature of denial that Muslims of the sub-continent want to live in.

@ Yes, it is true that we separated from the main Pakistan but does it mean that the concept of "Two Nation Theory", was wrong? or It is the end of two nation theory ? How can I deny the fact which my forefather propagated for the betterment of Muslim Society. This theory was propagated by Jinnah in 40s who in turn got insperation from the famous concept of "One Nation One State" by President Wilson(USA) before the Ist World to the colonial people of Asia and Africa. All India Muslim Leaque whole-heartedly accepted this concept, there should not be any doubt whether he is a Bengali, Behari, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pathan, Baluchi and all other Muslims who supported ML.


@ This theory was made basing on the political situation of United India during that particular time. A nation can constitute basing on religion, language,culture & tradition and finally willingness to remain together for commom interest. So Jinnah's concept was not altogether wrong. I may not like Jinnah but he was a great leader accepted by the muslims of the sub-continent as well as the Britain.

@ You are claiming that there are more numbers of Muslims in India than Pakistan and Bangladesh. Yes but who denies it. As per the original plan Pakistan including Bangladesh could have been much more bigger than what we got. Let's see one by one:

1. In Calcutta, there supposed to be referendum but once the preparation was in process a riot broke between Hindus and Muslims on June 1946/47 when Surwardy was Chief Minister where it was estimated about 10,000 muslims were killed within a week. During those days lot of Noakhali and Chittagonion muslims were working at Calcutta port but unfortunately all of them were buchered in a day. That is why a repercussion took place at Noakhali where Gundhi himself visited. How can we forget this inccident ? Calcutta had always been ruled by the either by Muslim Leaque or Muslim Leaque coalition during British times. Most of the period from 20s to 40s Mayor of Calcutta was muslim.

2. In 1946 election ML won at greater Malda district, Cochbehar and other areas of Silligori corridor but not attached to East Bengal. Some of the district of Assam like Karimganj where muslims got the majority were not given to East Bengal. Of course Congress won at Khulna.

3. India took forcefully the Princely State of Hydrabad, Kashmir and Junaigarh & Manvader where there were lot of muslims.

4. Infact, from the very beginning there was a joint conspiracy by the Congress and Britisher against the creation of Pakistan. We the muslims only got a portion of it.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

NOt sure about that. I had few south Indian Tamil Muslim friend who frowned at me when they learned that I cant speak Urdu. They used to speak Tamil with Hindus but talked Urdu amongst other muslims.

Hi iajdani,
That is an erroneous conclusion that you have come to. To start with, Urdu is a North Indian language. In Southern India, i.e. starting south from Maharashtra, Andhra, Karnataka to Tamil Nadu, Muslim people still tend to speak their own (local) language among themselves. Some have learnt Arabic to the extent necessary to read the Holy scriptures; not as a medium of everyday conversation. Learning Urdu did not have the same importance to them because of lack of utility to them. In Hyderabad for instance, the "version' of Urdu that may be heard is a quaint mixture with local languages to sound very funny actually. The only people that i found there who were able to speak Urdu well, were mostly descendents of the ruling classes who in fact spoke Farsi (Persian) even better; since i did not understand much Farsi, my father helped me along there.

Now, conversely in Chittagong and Dhaka, how many people speak Urdu ? i have some idea, having been there a number of times. It has not been necessary for them, because they have a well-developed language to start with. But their language has assimilated many words from Urdu. Languages keep evolving all the time.
On the other hand even the Marathi spoken by Hindus in Maharashtra has approximately about 25% words which have roots in Farsi/Urdu.

But this is an experience that one may find across many languages. For example, go to Bombay and listen out to the Hindi in common usage there. i find it amusing to listen to since it is unlike any Hindi that i have heard, simply because it is an argot based on many languages.
Similarly the Bengali spoken on the streets of Calcutta seems to be quite unlike what Rabindranath spoke.

Finally people use a language that they feel comfortable with or which they perceive as meeting their requirements.
Official languages are nothing but languages imposed by legislation. People always find ways to work around that if they feel like.

 

[Perceptron]

Yes, it is true that we separated from the main Pakistan but does it mean that the concept of "Two Nation Theory", was wrong? or It is the end of two nation theory ? How can I deny the fact which my forefather propagated for the betterment of Muslim Society. This theory was propagated by Jinnah in 40s who in turn got insperation from the famous concept of "One Nation One State" by President Wilson(USA) before the Ist World to the colonial people of Asia and Africa. All India Muslim Leaque whole-heartedly accepted this concept, there should not be any doubt whether he is a Bengali, Behari, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pathan, Baluchi and all other Muslims who supported ML.

This theory was made basing on the political situation of United India during that particular time. A nation can constitute basing on religion, language,culture & tradition and finally willingness to remain together for commom interest. So Jinnah's concept was not altogether wrong. I may not like Jinnah but he was a great leader accepted by the muslims of the sub-continent as well as the Britain.

Any and every theory is true if it TRUE IN SPIRIT and stands the test of time against all odds, no matter what. Around the 2nd Century, Ptolemy stated a Geocentric theory which said that the Sun goes around the Earth. It stood as the truth for over 1400 years until it was disproved by the Heliocentric model(by Copernicus) ; What is the connection here ? The TNT was a political solution simply to satisfy the greed of One man, Jinnah who could not be considered to be sidelined politically in the great Game of Independence of India. And the statement that Jinnah was respected by the British is utter drivel ; I do not exactly remember a statement (word for word) but it went on to this effect by Mountbatten on Jinnah

Jinnah is a psychopathic case, in fact until i had met him i would not have thought that a man with such a complete lack of administrative knowledge or sense of responsibility could hold such high a position

Secondly, Jinnah was never a person of the Masses, he was simply a hanker of authority and he used Religion as an opium for the people ; So if the EU can exist with the French, Germans, Italians and the Spanish, even Baluchis, Sindhis, Pathans, Punjabis and Bengalis can co-exist IRRESPECTIVE of religion.

1. In Calcutta, there supposed to be referendum but once the preparation was in process a riot broke between Hindus and Muslims on June 1946/47 when Surwardy was Chief Minister where it was estimated about 10,000 muslims were killed within a week. During those days lot of Noakhali and Chittagonion muslims were working at Calcutta port but unfortunately all of them were buchered in a day. That is why a repercussion took place at Noakhali where Gundhi himself visited. How can we forget this inccident ? Calcutta had always been ruled by the either by Muslim Leaque or Muslim Leaque coalition during British times. Most of the period from 20s to 40s Mayor of Calcutta was muslim.

Do you know the actual reason of Direct Action Day ? Here you go Jinnah's speech on July 19, 1946 when he passed his "Direct Action" resolution

"What we have done today is the most historic act in our history. Never have we in the whole history of the League done anything except by the constitutional methods and by constitutionalism. But now we are obliged and forced into this position. This day we bid goodbye to constitutional methods…. Now the time has come for the Muslim Nation to resort to direct action. I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it."

3. India took forcefully the Princely State of Hydrabad, Kashmir and Junaigarh & Manvader where there were lot of muslims.

Except for Kashmir, the rest of what you say is BS, and i suggest you take a elementary course of History from neutral sources(non-Indian && non-Pakistani) on the Web. Manvadar is a province in Junagarh, and both Junagarh and Hyderabad had a majority of Hindus in them.

Infact, from the very beginning there was a joint conspiracy by the Congress and Britisher against the creation of Pakistan. We the muslims only got a portion of it.

So, when nothing comes into argument, you play the victim and start spouting conspiracy theories.

 

[TopCat]

Hi iajdani,
That is an erroneous conclusion that you have come to. To start with, Urdu is a North Indian language. In Southern India, i.e. starting south from Maharashtra, Andhra, Karnataka to Tamil Nadu, Muslim people still tend to speak their own (local) language among themselves. Some have learnt Arabic to the extent necessary to read the Holy scriptures; not as a medium of everyday conversation. Learning Urdu did not have the same importance to them because of lack of utility to them. In Hyderabad for instance, the "version' of Urdu that may be heard is a quaint mixture with local languages to sound very funny actually. The only people that i found there who were able to speak Urdu well, were mostly descendents of the ruling classes who in fact spoke Farsi (Persian) even better; since i did not understand much Farsi, my father helped me along there.

Well, what I said is my personal experience. I had few Muslim friends from south and they are fluent in local language like Telegu. But they did speak Urdu and I asked them about it. They said that they speak Urdu at home but outside they speak Telegu. I did not expect them to speak Urdu but they did. Not only that they asked me why cant I speak Urdu being a Muslim?

 

[TopCat]

Except for Kashmir, the rest of what you say is BS, and i suggest you take a elementary course of History from neutral sources(non-Indian && non-Pakistani) on the Web. Manvadar is a province in Junagarh, and both Junagarh and Hyderabad had a majority of Hindus in them.

Well, at least I know a case about Karimganj of Assam which was taken out of referrendum by managing the local DC at that time and given it directly to India. Now in 60 years from then you guys are screaming that Karimganj is filled with illegal muslim immigrants.

 

[salman nedian]

Guys,
One more time 16th December is coming. On this day we always present TV shows to curse our politicians and remember the bad memories. This time let’s make this day a ‘Reunion Day’; lets discuss the ways to bring both the parts closer. I think by utilizing this we forum should arrange a meeting to discuss the ways to decide how to operate together again.

 

[Skies]

* Basically the peoples of Gilgit,Waristan(FATA,)NWFP and Tribal areas are Phathans. Historically they had a ethinic link with greater Afganistan. These areas were intentionally separated from Afgan to make them weaker. On the other hand these people had always a dream either to be independant or merge with Afganistan. This advantage was taken by India but the people of Pakistan remained dumped and silent. I have a doubt if Taleban wins in future than greater part of Pakistan will go in the hands of Taleban. May be Baluchistan, NWFP, Wazristan, Tribal areas of Baristan and Gilgit. It is not that the people of Afganistan will come and annex them but they themselve will join them. And poor Pakistan instead of fighting with India will fight with her own people. By this time the people of Kashmir will have no longer interest in united Pakistan. May be with the influence of Taleban they might get independance. Now once India sees that major portion of Pakistan is gone on Taleban side they might grant independan to Kashmir through referrendum. At that time peopleof Kashmir may not vote for Pakistan.

If you are right: it means, people of Baluchistan, NWFP, Wazristan, Tribal areas of Baristan and Gilgit have no feelings or weak feelings for Pakistan even after 50 years of independence of Pakistan. And PK govt has failed to win their hearts and trust still now.

But the question is why they will want to be separated from PK. What are the economical or political gain? I think separation will make them weak, poor and slave country or another poor Afghanistan. The bigger Afghan = the bigger poor, problematic and illiterate country.