Army high command, not Bhutto, responsible for 1971 East Pak fiasco, says d

[T-Faz]

this is what our books tell, however it was Not Ch Rehmat Ali who FIRST coined the term PAKISTAN, you can consult Dr Safdar Mehmood's research on it or maybe look into Trek to Pakistan (dont know the author) or ref to the newspaper nawa-e-waqt when the issue of bringing Ch Rehmat Ali's deadbody was raised by PMLQ or consult khalid bin saeed's book (now I forgot the book's name), they have detail accounts on different proposals regarding the state and its different names.

Which books?

Pakistani books say a lot of things.

Please bring a source for your information from credible sources, nawa-e-waqt and such other publications do not hold much merit.

 

[T-Faz]

Iqbal in his address clearly states the possibility of either a separate or within federation. so......

and I didnt say Iqbal mentioned the name Pakistan first.... #

he actually died in 1938 two years before the Lahore resolution...

He said a province, bring a source to contradict me if you can.

Iqbal did not call his idea Pakistan, he referred to a large Muslim majority province formed from the Northern provinces of India.

He died even before the real drive for Pakistan began, that should tell you something.

 

[Vinod2070]

There remained back a high percent of Hindus in East Pakistan after the partition, why must the opinion of an Indian Bengali alter the fact that a substantial percent of Hindus opted for Pakistan and the largest number was of Bengali Hindus. Even the well read Joe Shearer alluded to this fact in one of his posts, please ask him for more details as he might know credible sources.

After the Objectives Resolution was passed, these same people were shocked and they admitted that this was not what was promised by Jinnah.

There were simply too many Hindus left in the East Pakistan. Not all of them could cross over.

Doesn't mean they supported the division of the country on the basis of religion!

There were such incidents prior to and after this direct action day was called for. What is your point exactly?

My point is that the polarization was along communal lines during those days.

I know that your biases and point of view might hinder your acceptability of the facts but yo better believe that there was a sizable amount of Hindu's, Christians and Parsis who chose to stay in Pakistan.

It is not about our biases but about facts. If I am wrong with facts, I am willing to be corrected. I hope same is true for you.

The fact is that just because people didn't want to leave the land of their ancestors doesn't mean they agreed with the partition. They would likely have been happier if there had been no partition for obvious reasons.

If it were a religions movement, the end result soon after its creation would have been to implement religious law in this land. In reality, Jinnah clearly stated that religion would remain a personal matter, if he wanted an Islamic state, he wouldn't have appointed a Hindu as a Law Minister.

Why would one appoint a Hindu if he wants to implement Sharia law?

You are right about the fact that this is what Mr. Jinnah said. May be the inherent contradictions were not too apparent then between what he wanted and what he created with the means that he used.

Are you guys not dealing with those contradictions till date?

Ethnic cleansing, what are you on about?

Well I am referring to the almost complete cleansing of religious minorities during and after the partition from the then West Pakistan.

You think it was 97% Islamic since the beginning?

It was much bigger in scale than Bosnia! And much more violent.

The actual number of Hindus has increased in Pakistan over time. Mohajirs accepted to live with this title when it should not have happened, there were obvious racist undertones in Pakistan and they exist to this day, religion was not the reason for this bias, it was ethnicity.

The Hindu and Sikhs were almost 20% of Pakistan pre partition, what is their number now?

How could the reason be ethnicity when they shared the ethnicity!

They were driven out and you got UPiites and Biharis in their place. And you are telling me it was about ethnicity?

You have just made an erroneous statement whereby you specifically mention the group of migrants as Mujahirs and not Muslims.

This clearly indicates that there were ethnic as well as religious aspects of the creation of Pakistan.

I used the term universally used in Pakistan. I don't think it was their choice to be called that. Even now on this very forum I have seen undertones of bias against them.

As I mentioned, the partition violence was between people of the same ethnicity but different religion. I don't see how it aligns with your claims about ethnicity being any factor.

Were Punjabis closer ethnically to the Pushtuns than someone they shares a surname with?

It it was primarily driven by religion, why would the hardline Mullahs oppose it so bitterly and stand with congress against this idea.

Yes that is a good question. Per my understanding, they wanted it all, not just a part of it.

I am not sure they were with the Congress though. Congress was hated by the Hindu religious as well as Muslim religious right.

 

[Vinod2070]

What contradiction, the people wanted to separate themselves from an independent India and they used religion is a common factor for their difference.

Well, the contradiction is obvious.

On the one hand yous ay Mr. Jinnah didn't want a separate country till the very last minute.

On the other hand, you say that you wanted to separate because of ethnicity.

Then the claim about ethnicity has been debunked I believe, given the partition violence between people of the same ethnicity.

I also wrote this if you read my post.

The question of rights came in to play when based on religion differences the congress did not even let Muslims in the party initially.

This Pakistan that we have is a mixture of a cultural and religious movement.

The fact is (and you may easily verify this) that the people of West Pakistan were not that keen on partition. It was mainly the UP Muslims (living as minorities) who were driving this.

If this is true, this again debunks the ethnicity claims.

I am not sure of the highlighted part. Any sources? I have seen Muslim members in Congress from very early, including Mr. Jinnah who was a pretty senior figure.

 

[Leader]

He said a province, bring a source to contradict me if you can.

Iqbal did not call his idea Pakistan, he referred to a large Muslim majority province formed from the Northern provinces of India.

He died even before the real drive for Pakistan began, that should tell you something.

refrain yourself from getting personal... this is the second time I felt.

On two occasions in his address, Iqbal referred to Muslim state and once mentioned muslim India.

now Iqbal's quote "I would like to see the Punjab, N.W.F.P, Sindh, and Balouchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North West Indian Muslim state appears to me the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of the North West India"
whether it was intentionally or unintentionally, but he did mention...he was highly criticised for his views, so he refrained himself to Province after the early days of the address, but later kept on emphasising on "final destiny" i.e. separate state.

from plateforum of Muslim League he was Not entitled to go against the party agenda, which was not for a separate homeland for muslims till almost mid of 40s, and that time it was possible to solve the communal problems, so it was unnecessary to advocate a separate state, it was the idea for which the time had not come yet. Javed Iqbal.

also in 1933 Iqbal wrote to his friend R. Ahsan "....creation of Islamic state or implementation of scheme of pakistan"(I am unable to recall the words of the letter....)

later in 1937 he also wrote to J asking "dont you think that time for such a demand has already arrived?"

you can go by letter or by spirit, but keeping the context one thing is for sure Iqbal wanted Muslim Nation to practice ISLAM to save the culture and civilization, and that he believed rights of muslims cannnot be saved if the other group would dominate.

 

[Abu Basit]

Bangladesh was always supposed to be part of Pakistan as the struggle of the Muslims of Indian Sub-continent was for a noble cause of having a separate land where they could live according to the principles of Quran & Sunnah. There's a reason why millions of Muslims sacrificed their lives and this reason is reflected in the slogan 'Pakistan ka matlab kya - la ilaha illal lah Muhammad ur Rasul Allah'.

This reason/noble cause was hijacked by corrupt secular/liberal minded ruling elite and nationalism/regionalism took over Islamism. blind nationalism is curse and this was reflected in 1971 fiasco, the secular/liberal trash on both sides was responsible to betray the noble cause for which Muslims sacrificed their lives.

 

[T-Faz]

There were simply too many Hindus left in the East Pakistan. Not all of them could cross over.

Doesn't mean they supported the division of the country on the basis of religion!

I never stated that Hindus who were left in Pakistan supported the partition, however a number of religious minorities did opt for Pakistan and they supported the two-state solution.

My point is that the polarization was along communal lines during those days.

It was and the fact remains that it was a factor that played a role in partition.

It is not about our biases but about facts. If I am wrong with facts, I am willing to be corrected. I hope same is true for you.

The fact is that just because people didn't want to leave the land of their ancestors doesn't mean they agreed with the partition. They would likely have been happier if there had been no partition for obvious reasons.

I am willing to be corrected too but I need to convinced with facts.

You are right about the fact that this is what Mr. Jinnah said. May be the inherent contradictions were not too apparent then between what he wanted and what he created with the means that he used.

Are you guys not dealing with those contradictions till date?

These so called contradictions are mere lies, Jinnah had specifically stated to people including important figures that Pakistan was not going to be an Islamic state, he told this to the Raja of Mahmudabad. After the creation of Pakistan, he said the same thing to Iskander Mirza who asked him on the what kind of state it will be.

We never had to deal with such contradictions until Bhutto started to appease the Mullahs and Gen Zia Islamized the country.

Well I am referring to the almost complete cleansing of religious minorities during and after the partition from the then West Pakistan.

You think it was 97% Islamic since the beginning?

It was much bigger in scale than Bosnia! And much more violent.

Really, I am going to prove you wrong with facts, not propaganda that you seem to be high on.

The Hindu and Sikhs were almost 20% of Pakistan pre partition, what is their number now?

How could the reason be ethnicity when they shared the ethnicity!

They were driven out and you got UPiites and Biharis in their place. And you are telling me it was about ethnicity?

The Hindus like the Sikhs were told that Pakistan was as much theirs as it was of Muslims, a number of Hindus migrated, some stayed behind and a lot were killed. The communal tension was building for decades and it finally led to this eventual clash that was going to occur even if there wasn't partition.

Ethnicity specifically did not play a role, did it. As I have stated the movement had religious as well as cultural undertones and thus the reason why some opted for Pakistan.

I used the term universally used in Pakistan. I don't think it was their choice to be called that. Even now on this very forum I have seen undertones of bias against them.

As I mentioned, the partition violence was between people of the same ethnicity but different religion. I don't see how it aligns with your claims about ethnicity being any factor.

Were Punjabis closer ethnically to the Pushtuns than someone they shares a surname with?

Like I said before, the religious tensions of that time were waiting to tip over and the finally violence erupted during partition. The communal tensions are the primary cause of this, Hindu-Muslims were agitated with each other and the expected departure of the British would have created the opportunity for this to occur.

Yes that is a good question. Per my understanding, they wanted it all, not just a part of it.

I am not sure they were with the Congress though. Congress was hated by the Hindu religious as well as Muslim religious right.

They wanted to dominate the Hindu's in a United India and they stated that the idea of Pakistan was against the tenants of Islam.

They allied with the congress because in their minds, the Muslim League was a threat to them and the congress was the only party which could be used as a platform to oppose it.

Now regarding the population numbers of minorities, I will use Hindus to look into population change

There is common misconception that the population of religious minorities has decreased in Pakistan, in actuality the numbers have increased over time.

First of all you cannot use the data from 1947 because migration of Hindus and Muslims to India and Pakistan did not end till about early 50′s, similarly there is the matter of Eastern and Western wings of Pakistan. The Eastern wing (now Bangladesh) had a higher percent of minorities especially the Bengali Hindu community which opted for Pakistan.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Now lets consider the case of West Pakistan alone because that is what is left from the Pakistan that was originally conceived. Data from 1947 cannot be used becuase of mass migration of Hindus towards India. Lets use 1950 for a better comparison shall we as it was when the migration and internal displacement was somewhat over. There were 39,448,232 people in West Pakistan and a total of 6.54 milllion hindus, of which 5.4 million left for India.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/The%20Big%20March%20December%202005.pdf

Now West Pakistan was left with 1.1 million Hindu’s, half of whom were unfortunately killed by Muslims in the riots that broke out. So by that account 500,000 hindus were left in West and today they are higher than 7 million, percentage does not matter because Muslim population boomed (much like in India) and there were alot of immigrants who entered Pakistan since that time.

Minorities in Pakistan: No public holiday for Hindus for festivals – The Express Tribune

So you can see that by just looking at the example of Hindu’s, we can see that the numbers are much higher than what they were before. This is also true for Ahmadi’s, Christians and a few others. Another thing to note is the under reporting of minorities in this country.

Under-reporting of non-Muslim Pakistanis – a major problem | Pak Tea House

 

[T-Faz]

Well, the contradiction is obvious.

On the one hand yous ay Mr. Jinnah didn't want a separate country till the very last minute.

On the other hand, you say that you wanted to separate because of ethnicity.

Then the claim about ethnicity has been debunked I believe, given the partition violence between people of the same ethnicity.

Jinnah was fighting for Muslim rights, he wanted equal rights for Muslims in India and this idea called Pakistan was used as a tool to gain rights for Muslims.

The northern Indian people felt that their culture and subsequently their religion was different to the rest, the common factor for them to unify and obtain their own autonomous region or even a state was the 'Muslim' factor. If you look at the Baloch, they stated the same and wanted a different state for themselves but a number of them agreed to Pakistan based on religion.

However to this day, their cultural identity overpowers their religious one, all provinces in Pakistan wanted to be autonomous and their leaders later opposed such things as one unit policy which they felt would hurt their culture.

The fact is (and you may easily verify this) that the people of West Pakistan were not that keen on partition. It was mainly the UP Muslims (living as minorities) who were driving this.

If this is true, this again debunks the ethnicity claims.

I am not sure of the highlighted part. Any sources? I have seen Muslim members in Congress from very early, including Mr. Jinnah who was a pretty senior figure.

If the people of West Pakistan were against this idea, Pakistan would not have been created, Its as simple as that.

How can the idea be only supported by Muslims from UP when a sizable number of Bengalis, Sindhi's, Pathans, Kashmiri's, Punjabis etc were a major part of it.

The Muslim League was a direct result of Congress's behavior against the Muslims.

The Congress made no conscious efforts to enlist the Muslim community in its struggle for Indian independence.

Though later it allowed a number of them to join and rise amongst its ranks, however the same people were disillusioned by the way congress worked and they left the party, Jinnah was the prime example of this.

 

[T-Faz]

refrain yourself from getting personal... this is the second time I felt.

Personal?

All I have asked of you is some references for your claims.

Whats offensive or hurtful about that.

On two occasions in his address, Iqbal referred to Muslim state and once mentioned muslim India.

now Iqbal's quote "I would like to see the Punjab, N.W.F.P, Sindh, and Balouchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North West Indian Muslim state appears to me the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of the North West India"
whether it was intentionally or unintentionally, but he did mention...he was highly criticised for his views, so he refrained himself to Province after the early days of the address, but later kept on emphasising on "final destiny" i.e. separate state.

This by no means is a proper indication of his idea, he was merely alluding to something which he never clearly mentioned. What he was clear about was the idea of a combined province for Muslims.

from plateforum of Muslim League he was Not entitled to go against the party agenda, which was not for a separate homeland for muslims till almost mid of 40s, and that time it was possible to solve the communal problems, so it was unnecessary to advocate a separate state, it was the idea for which the time had not come yet. Javed Iqbal.

Perhaps but if you use Javed as a source, this might also be of help to you.

On the night of March 7, 2011, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal was interviewed on a TV channel on the nature of the Pakistani state. He held that Pakistan, as envisaged by Jinnah, was to be a secular state.

Was Jinnah secular? – The Express Tribune

also in 1933 Iqbal wrote to his friend R. Ahsan "....creation of Islamic state or implementation of scheme of pakistan"(I am unable to recall the words of the letter....)

later in 1937 he also wrote to J asking "dont you think that time for such a demand has already arrived?"

I would really like a source for this as it would help me understand more about the background of this nation.

you can go by letter or by spirit, but keeping the context one thing is for sure Iqbal wanted Muslim Nation to practice ISLAM to save the culture and civilization, and that he believed rights of muslims cannnot be saved if the other group would dominate.

Yes he did but Jinnah wanted a secular state and Iqbals own son said that.

Jinnah created Pakistan not Iqbal.

 

[Vinod2070]

Thanks, I will get back later.

I am not in total disagreement with you and some things are gray rather than black and white. There are still some issues I am not entirely convinced though. You can also see it in some Pakistani members' posts.

 

[Abu Basit]

the interesting thing is , those who have been trying for the last 60 years to prove that jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan can't bring even a single statement of Jinnah where he used the word 'secular-

 

[Amalek]

My great grand father did not migrate to Pakistan when it was created. How could anyone leave everything behind and for to a foreign land just because a bunch of f--ing politicians decided to create a separate state for their enrichment. Wouldn't a Muslim in a United pre-1947 India be wealthier and more equal than he already is?

I am glad my Hindu neighbors were not paranoid enough to kill my family for no fault of ours...

 

[Solomon2]

There was much ZAB could have done to alleviate matters. Although the Awami League was inflexible, he could have agreed to their demands without risk to Pakistani citizens, for Bangladeshis lacked the power to enforce their political will upon West Pakistan. Eventually East Pakistan might have gotten tired of its own rhetoric and opposition and virtual divorce from West Pakistan and terms for the union would be renegotiated.

But ZAB's problem with that approach is that he would be denied much power, at least for a time. That was unacceptable to him. He went out of his way to encourage the Army not to honor the election results. Naturally when everything went badly the Army handed the reigns over to him, and he was quite happy to receive them. So what if it cost the lives of tens of thousands of Pakistanis? ZAB willingly sacrificed thousands for political purposes in 1965, why would he stop now?

 

[Vinod2070]

So by that account 500,000 hindus were left in West and today they are higher than 7 million, percentage does not matter because Muslim population boomed (much like in India) and there were alot of immigrants who entered Pakistan since that time.

Actually these figures seem a bit surprising.

I am not sure any of them is correct. They would show a rise of Hindu population by 14 times!

The Pakistani or Indian population has barely increased by four times in these 60 years.

 

[mikkix]

East Pakistan was always made for another independent country. pakistan never accepted them.
Air field marshal Ayub khan was responsible for it,, When Fatima Jinnah had lost the election it was all set to made pakistan a dictatorship society.
East pakistani politicians are the ones that made pakistan possible and these are the ones that wants islamic democracy but west Pakistani politicians comprises of those Elites who want to use this state for their own comforts..